DF 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 


Class 


THE  STAGE  HISTORY  OF 
KING   RICHARD   THE  THIRD 


THE  STAGE  HISTORY 

OF  SHAKESPEARE'S 
KING  RICHARD  THE  THIRD 


BY 

ALICE  I.  PERRY  WOOD,  PH.D. 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT   OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY,  IN  THE  FACULTY 

OF  PHILOSOPHY,  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 
1909 


Copyright,    1909 
BY  THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

Printed  from  type  May,  1909 


PRESS  OF 

THE  NEW  ERA  PRINTING  COMPANT 
LANCASTER.  PA. 


MAIN 


This  Monograph  has  been  approved  by  the  Department  of  Eng- 
lish in  Columbia  University  as  a  contribution  to  knowledge  worthy 

of  publication. 

A.   H.  THORNDIKE, 

Secretary. 


189824 


TO 

iflutltrr 


AND 


WITH  GRATITUDE  AND  AFFECTION 


PREFACE 

In  the  following  pages  it  is  my  purpose  to  trace  the  fortune 
upon  the  stage  of  one  of  the  most  popular  of  Shakespeare's 
plays,  "  The  Tragedy  of  King  Richard  the  Third."  In  such 
a  history,  the  consideration  of  the  play  as  literature  must  be 
entirely  subordinated  to  the  exhibition  of  its  capacity  for  stage 
effectiveness,  and  its  success,  deserved  or  not,  with  the  public. 
For  this  reason,  discussions  of  text,  date  and  authorship,  are 
deemed  out  of  the  province  of  this  enquiry.  While  the  mate- 
rials for  such  a  study,  especially  in  the  earlier  history  of  the, 
play,  are  scant,  it  has  been  my  aim  to  give  such  records  of 
performances  as  are  extant,  with  the  conditions  of  staging,  the 
use  of  scenery,  properties,  and  costume,  the  methods  of  actors, 
especially  of  those  who  have  taken  the  principal  part,  and  the 
attitude  of  the  audience  in  successive  periods  and  under  vary- 
ing conditions.  Since  there  is  little  direct  information  con- 
cerning the  play  during  the  Elizabethan  period,  I  have  at- 
tempted to  supply  this  lack  in  some  measure,  by  an  examina- 
tion of  the  typical  plays  of  the  time,  with  a  view  to  discovering 
the  stage  conditions  which  affected  the  original  presentation. 
Having  established  the  prevailing  methods  of  staging  by  care- 


ful reference  to  the  directions  in  contemporary  plays,  and  by 
noting  the  favorite  devices,  and  the  management  of  situations 
similar  to  those  occurring  in  this  play,  I  have  thought  it  pos- 
sible, by  a  comparative  method,  to  reconstruct  the  presentation 
of  "  Richard  the  Third  "  in  Shakespeare's  time. 

The  work  naturally  falls  into  well-marked  divisions.     First, 
the  history  of  the  play  from  its  earliest  performance  to  the 
closing  of  the  theatres.     The  next  period  extends  from  thex\  ^ 
opening  of  the  theatres  to  1700,  a  time  of  general  rather  than 
particular  importance  to  our  subject.     With  the  beginning  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  the  Gibber  version  of  "Richard  the"' 
Third,"  the  best  known  of  all  the  adaptations  of  Shakespeare, 
appeared,  and  this  constitutes  the  main  feature  of  the  history 
of  the  play  during  the  century.     Garrick  initiates  a  new  era -4^ 
in  the  history  of  acting  in  the  mid-eighteenth  century  and  I 
have  therefore  made  his  age  the  beginning  of  a  fourth  period. 
This  extends  through  the  career  of  Sir  Henry  Irving.     The 


fortune  of  "  Richard  the  Third  "  in  America  deserves  a  place 
in  the  history  of  this  play,  both  because  of  its  intrinsic  interest 
and  because  of  its  importance  in  American  theatrical  develop- 
ment, and  the  last  chapter  therefore  gives  the  main  facts  of  its 
^•t*  history  in  this  country,  from  its  first  performance  in  1750, 
through  the  life-time  of  Edwin  Booth.  The  study  ends  with 
such  indications  of  general  tendencies  in  the  presentation  of 
the  play  as  I  have  gathered  in  the  course  of  this  investigation. 

While  the  general  purpose  is  expressed  in  the  opening  sen- 
tence of  these  introductory  remarks,  it  is  hoped  that  a  farther 
aim  has  not  been  entirely  lost  sight  of,  and  that  this  work  has 
served  to  add  some  slight  evidence  for  the  worthier  estimation 
of  Shakespeare's  genius  as  one  that  but  turned  to  most  signifi- 
cant use  the  common  materials  lying  close  to  the  hands  of  all. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  express  my  gratitude  for  many 
courtesies  received  at  the  Astor,  Lenox  and  Columbia  libraries, 
and  my  indebtedness  to  the  various  members  of  the  English 
department  at  Columbia  University.  Especially  do  I  wish  to 
thank  Professor  G.  R.  Carpenter,  whose  advice  and  encourage- 
ment have  been  invaluable ;  Professor  W.  P.  Trent,  for  helpful 
counsel;  Professor  W.  W.  Lawrence,  for  reading  the  manu- 
script; Professor  Brander  Matthews,  for  reading  the  manu- 
script and  furnishing  some  data;  Professor  W.  A.  Neilson, 
now  of  Harvard  University,  at  whose  suggestion  this  subject 
was  undertaken ;  and  Professor  A.  H.  Thorndike,  whose 
method  of  procedure  I  have  adopted  and  who,  throughout  the 
work,  has  aided  generously  with  suggestion  and  criticism. 

A.  I.  P.  W. 

VASSAR  COLLEGE, 
December  13,  1908. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

I 
RICHARD  THE  THIRD  IN  ITS  RELATION  TO  CONTEMPORARY 

PLAYS i 

II 
RICHARD  THE  THIRD  ON  THE  ELIZABETHAN  STAGE 25 

III 

RICHARD  THE  THIRD  AND  THE  DRAMA  OF  THE  RESTORA- 
TION       60 

IV 
THE  CIBBER  VERSION  OF  RICHARD  THE  THIRD 76 

V 

FROM  GARRICK  TO  IRVING — 1741-1897 101 

VI 
RICHARD  THE  THIRD  IN  AMERICA 134 

VII 

CONCLUSION  166 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 172 

INDEX 179 


L'opinion  generalement  etablie  sur  Richard  a  pu  contribuer  au  succes  de 
la  piece  qui  porte  son  nom :  aucun  peut-etre  des  ouvrages  de  Shakspeare 
n'est  demeure  aussi  populaire  en  Angleterre.  Les  critique  ne  1'ont  pas  en 
general  traite  aussi  favorablement  que  le  public ;  quelques-uns,  entre 
autres  Johnson,  se  sont  etonnes  de  son  prodigieux  succes ;  on  pourrait 
s'etonner  de  leur  suprise  si  Ton  ne  savait,  par  experience,  que  le  critique, 
charge  de  mettre  de  1'ordre  dans  les  richesses  dont  la  public  a  joui  d'abord 
confusement,  s'affectionne  quelquefois  tellement  a  cet  ordre  et  surtout  a 
la  maniere  dont  il  1'a  congu,  qu'il  se  laisse  facilement  induire  a  condamner 
les  beautes  auxquelles,  dans  son  systeme,  il  ne  sait  pas  trouver  une  place 
convenable. 

GUIZOT  :  Notice  sur  La  Vie  et  La  Mort  de  Richard  III. 


RICHARD  THE  THIRD  IN  ITS  RELATION  TO  CONTEMPORARY 

PLAYS 

Documentary  facts  of  presentation  and  stage  history — Earlier  and  con- 
temporary plays — "  Richardus  Tertius  " — "  The  True  Tragedy  " — References 
to  other  plays  on  the  subject— »^lieatrical  conditions  in  1593-4 — The  close 
relations  between  dramatic  authors  tending  to  produce  well-marked  types 
— Plays  based  on  the  chronicles — Typical  situations  and  general  character- 
istics— Influence  of  Marlowe — "  The  Spanish  Tragedy  " — "  Richard  the 
Third  "  in  reference  to  these  types. 

It  is  one  of  the  surprises  of  Shakespearian  criticism  that 
some  of  the  plays  known  to  have  been  on  the  stage  for  three 
hundred  years  seem  to  have  left  so  little  trace  in  the  annals  of 
stage  history  or  in  contemporary  literature.  The  play  of 
"Richard  the  Third"  offers  slight  reward  to  the  student' 
searching  for  documentary  facts,  .merely  a  few  references, 
sometimes  vague,  sometimes  ambiguous,  to  what  is  conceded 
to  have  been  one  of  the  most  popular  of  Shakespeare's  plays. 
What  is  surely  known  may  be  given  very  briefly. 

While  no  definite  evidence  exists,  authorities  generally  agree 
in  fixing  the  date  of  "  Richard  the  Third  "  at  I593-4.1  We 
learn  from  the  title  page  of  the  first  Quarto,  1597,  that  it  was 
performed  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  Men,  one  of  the  leading 

1  Such  as  Ward,  Fleay,  The  Irving  Shakespeare,  The  Temple  and  Cam- 
bridge editions,  etc.  The  reasons,  so  far  as  based  upon  the  publication 
of  The  True  Tragedy,  are  of  little  weight,  as  many  plays  were  printed  in 
1 594-5  owing  to  the  breaking  up  of  the  companies.  Surer  indications  are 
the  workmanship  and  the  traces  of  Marlowe.  Halliwell-Phillipps  puts  the 
date  at  1597,  because  of  the  phrase  "lately  acted"  on  the  Quarto  as 
referring  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  Company.  The  company  would 
obviously  be  designated  by  its  name  at  the  time,  no  matter  what  it  may 
have  been  called  when  the  play  first  appeared.  The  opinions  of  the  leading 
authorities  on  the  question  of  the  date  may  be  found  on  pages  451-6  of  the 
New  Variorum  edition  of  Richard  the  Third,  which  has  appeared  since  this 
was  written. 


companies  of  the  day.  That  it  was  popular  and  fell  in  with 
the  taste  of  the  day,  we  gather  from  the  constant  demands  for 
republication,2  as  well  from  frequent  allusions.  It  is  first  men- 
tioned in  John  Weever's  "  Epigram  Ad  Gulielmum  Shakes- 
peare,"3 1595,  where,  among  other  characters  of  "  honie-tong'd 
Shakespeare/'  he  names  Richard,  probably,  though  not  surely, 
Richard  the  Third.  In  "  Epigrams  and  Elegies  "  by  J.  B.  and 
C.  M.,  supposed  to  belong  to  1596,  a  part  of  Richard's  speech 
is  imitated.4  "  Richard  the  Third "  is  among  the  tragedies 
commended  by  Meres  in  "  Palladis  Tamia,"  1598.  Richard's 
line, 

A  horse !  a  horse !  my  kingdom  for  a  horse ! 

found   many    imitators.5     In   "  England's    Parnassus,"    1600, 

3  Wise  published  the  Quartos  of  1597,  1598  and  1602.  The  copyright 
was  then  sold  to  Matthew  Law  who  republished  the  play  in  1605,  1612, 
1622,  1629  and  1634.  In  1623  it  appeared  in  the  Folio.  There  were  a 
larger  number  of  editions  of  Richard  the  Third  before  1640  than  of  any 
other  of  Shakespeare's  plays. 

8  Honie-tong'd  Shakespeare,  when  I  saw  thine  issue, 
I  swore  Apollo  got  them  and  none  other, 

Rose-checkt  Adonis  with  his  amber  tresses, 
Faire  fire-hot  Venus  charming  him  to  love  her, 
Chaste  Lucretia  virgine-like  her  dresses, 
Prowd  lust-stung  Tarquine  seeking  still  to  prove  her; 
Romea  Richard;  more,  whose  names  I  know  not, 
Their  sugred  tongues,  and  power  attractive  beuty 
Say  they  are  Saints,  althogh  that  Sts  they  show  not, 
For  thousands  vowes  to  them  subjective  dutie. 

*  I  am  not  fashioned  for  these  amorous  times, 
To  court  thy  beauty  with  lascivious  rhymes ; 
I  cannot  dally,  caper,  dance  and  sing, 
Oiling  my  saint  with  supple  something. 

Compare  Richard  the  Third,  Act  I,  Scene  i,  lines  14-17. 
46Marston:  Scourge  of  Villainie,  1598. 

A  man,  a  man,  a  kingdom  for  a  man ! 
Chapman:  Eastward  Hoe,  1605. 

A  boate,  a  boate,  a  boate,  a  full  hundred  marks  for  a  boate. 
Marston :  Parasitaster,  or  the  Fawne,  1606. 

A  foole,  a  foole,  a  foole,  my  coxcombe  for  a  foole ! 
Marston:  What  you  Will,  1607. 

A  horse,  a  horse,  my  kingdom  for  a  horse ! 


there  are  five  quotations  from  "  Richard  the  Third."  Sir 
William  Cornwallis,  in  1600,  remonstrated  against  the  popular 
conception  of  Richard  as  gained  from  the  plays.  In  1601,  in 
"The  Return  from  Parnassus,"  Part  I,  Act  IV,  Scene  3, 
Burbage  and  Kempe  are  represented  as  teaching  students  to 
act  and  as  using  this  play  for  their  text.6  Manningham,  in  his 
"Diary"  under  date  of  March  13,  1601,  tells  an  anecdote  of 
Burbage  and  Shakespeare  at  a  performance  of  "  Richard  the 
Third."  Barnabe  Barnes,  in  "  Four  Bookes  of  Office,"  1606, 
and  Nicholas  Breton  in  "  Good  and  Badde,"  1616,  both  refer 
to  the  popularity  of  "  Richard  the  Third "  with  vulgar  audi- 
ences. The  allusion  most  frequently  quoted  occurs  somewhat 
later  in  Bishop  Corbet's  "  Iter  Boreale  "  of  about  1618,  where 
Burbage  is  inseparably  identified  with  the  part  of  Richard  the 
Third.7  In  the  same  year,  in  "  Funeral  Elegy  "  on  Burbage, 
it  is  said, 

And  Crookback,  as  befits,  shall  cease  to  live. 

Brathwaite :  Strappado  for  the  Divell,  1615. 

A  horse,  a  kingdom  for  a  horse. 
Hey  wood  :  Iron  Age,  1611. 
Syn.     A  horse,  a  horse. 

Pyn.     Ten  kingdoms  for  a  horse  to  enter  Troy. 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher:  Little  French  Lawyer,  c.  1620. 

My  kingdom  for  a  sword. 
Hey  wood :  Edward  the  Fourth,  1600  pub. 
A  staff,  a  staff, 

A  thousand  crowns  for  a  staff ! 
Peele:  The  Battle  of  Alcazar,  1594. 
A  horse,  a  horse,  villain,  a  horse. 

This  last  may  antedate  Richard  the  Third  and  therefore  be  the  original 
line.  Compare  with  these  Shakespeare's  own  imitation  in  the  Prologue  of 
Henry  the  Fifth. 

A  kingdom  for  stage. 

8  Burbage.     I    like    your    face,    and    the    proportion    of    your    body    for 
Richard    III ;    I   pray,    Master    Philomusus   let   me    see   you 
act  a  little  of  it. 
Phil.     "  Now  is  the  winter  of  our  discontent 

Made  glorious  summer  by  the  sun  of  York." 
Bur.     Very  well,  I  assure  you. 

7  For  when  he  would  have  sayed  "  King  Richard  dyed," 
And  called — "  a  horse,  a  horse !  " — he  Burbage  cryed. 


We  find  later  references  in  Nahum  Tate's  "  Loyal  General," 
i68o,8  and  in  Milton's  "  Eikonoclastes,"  1690,°  and  reminis- 
cences of  lines  from  "  Richard  the  Third  "  appeared  in  various 
poems  for  fifty  years  after  the  play. 

These  allusions,10  while  scanty,  show  that  the  figure  of 
Richard  the  Third  was  a  familiar  one,11  that  it  appealed  to  the 
imagination  in  its  portrayal  of  an  arch-villain,  and  that  the 
greatest  actor  of  the  time,  Burbage,  was  identified  with  it. 
With  the  one  record  of  a  performance,  given  in  Sir  Henry 
Herbert's  Office  Book  under  date  of  i633,12  these  references 
comprise  all  the  direct  information  we  possess  prior  to  the 
Restoration,  of  "  Richard  the  Third  "  as  a  stage  play.  What 
further  light  we  may  throw  upon  its  presentation  must  come 
from  a  consideration  of  the  theatrical  and  dramatic  situation 
of  the  time. 

Before  considering  this,  however,  it  is  necessary  to  turn  for 
a  moment  to  the  earlier  plays  on  the  subject.13  "  Richard  the 

•  In  the  dedication  to  Edward  Tayler,  he  speaks  of  Shakespeare's  power 
in   delineating    Richard   the   Third's   "  Person,   and    Cruel    Practices "    and 
gives  quotations  to  illustrate. 

*  Shakespeare  "  introduces  the  Person  of  Richard  the  Third,  speaking  in 
as  high  a  strain  of  Piety,  and  mortification,  as  is  uttered  in  any  passage  of 
this  Book   (Eikon  Basilike)  ;   and  sometimes  to  the  same  seise  and  pur- 
pose with  some  words  in  this  Place,  etc."     There  is  a  reference  to  Richard 
the  Third  in  Gayton's  Festivous  Notes  on  Don  Quixote,  1654,  in  addition 
to  these  given. 

"See  for  many  of  these  Shakespeare's  Centurie  of  Prayse,  edited  by 
C.  M.  Ingleby,  revised  by  L.  T.  Smith,  published  by  The  New  Shakespeare 
Society,  Series  IV,  number  2,  1879. 

11  C.  B.,  the  author  of  a  poem,  The  Ghost  of  Richard  III,  explains  that 
^s^  ,/he  does  not  enlarge  on  the  story  of  Richard  because  it  is  "  made  so  common 
in  plays  and  so  notorious  among  all  men." 

! "  On  Saterday  the  1 7th  of  Novemb  being  the  Queene's  birthday, 
Richarde  the  Thirde  was  acted  by  the  K.  players  at  St.  James,  wher  the 
king-  and  queene  were  present." 

"This  subject  as  it  has  appeared  in  chronicle,  poem  and  play,  has  been 
fully  treated  by  Mr.  G.  B.  Churchill  in  Richard  the  Third  up  to  Shakespeare, 
and  to  that  I  am  greatly  indebted.  He  shows  that  before,  and  con- 
temporary with  its  appearance  on  the  stage,  the  subject  was  popular  in 
several  forms.  In  ballads  there  are  extant  The  Song  of  Lady  Bessie, 
dating  from  about  1500,  The  Tragical  Report  of  King  Richard  the  Third, 


Third  "  on  the  stage  dates  from  the  appearance  in  1579,  of  the 
Latin  play,  "  Richardus  Tertius,"  by  Dr.  Thomas  Legge,  Vice 
Chancellor  of  Cambridge  and  Master  of  Caius  College.  This 
is  said  to  have  been  elaborately  staged,  and  was  very  popular 
with  academic  audiences.  There  are  some,  though  rather 
doubtful,  evidences  that  it  was  repeated  in  1582  and  in  1592, 
on  the  former  date  before  the  Earl  of  Essex,  on  the  latter 
before  the  Queen,14  and  Henry  Lacey,  in  1586,  made  a  tran- 
script of  it  for  presentation  at  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
An  indication  of  its  popularity  lies  in  the  large  number  of 
manuscripts  in  existence,  of  which  there  are  no  fewer  than 
ten;  three  at  Cambridge,  two  in  the  British  Museum,  one  in 
Bodleian,  and  one  in  private  hands.15  It  is  to  this  play  that 

1586,  Deloney's  Lamentation  of  Jane  Shore  in  The  Garland  of  Good-Will 
of  the  same  time.  In  The  Mirour  for  Magistrates,  compiled  as  early  as 
1554,  but  first  published  in  1559,  there  were  nine  poems  concerned  with 
the  story  of  Richard  the  Third  in  the  first  four  editions.  These  were  the 
poems  on  Henry  the  Sixth,  on  the  Duke  of  Clarence  and  on  Edward  the 
Fourth,  in  the  1559  edition;  in  the  edition  of  1563  were  added  Sir  Anthony 
Woodville,  Lord  Rivers,  Lord  Hastings,  The  Complaint  of  Henrie,  Duke 
of  Buckingham  by  Thomas  Sackville,  Collingborne  by  Baldwin,  Richard 
Plantagenet,  Duke  of  Gloucester  by  Segar,  and  Shore's  Wife  by  Thomas 
Churchyard.  In  1593,  contemporary  with  Richard  the  Third,  two  poems 
on  the  subject,  Beawtie  dishonoured  written  under  the  title  of  Shore's 
wife  by  Anthony  Chute,  and  Licia  or  Poems  of  Love,  in  Honour  of  the 
admirable  and  singular  vertues  of  his  Lady,  to  the  imitation  of  the  best 
Latin  poets  and  others.  Whereunto  is  added  the  Rising  to  the  Crowne  of 
Richard  the  third,  by  Giles  Fletcher.  Michael  Drayton's  Heroicall  Epistles 
were  published  in  1599,  but  were  probably  written  earlier.  Those  related 
to  this  subject  are,  Queene  Margaret  to  William  de-la-Poole,  Duke  of 
Suffolk,  Edward  IV  to  Shore's  Wife,  and  The  Epistle  of  Shore's  Wife  to 
King  Edward  the  fourth.  Less  popular  versions  of  the  story  were  to  be 
found  in  Sir  Thomas  More's  History  of  King  Richard  III,  which  appeared 
in  English  about  1513  with  an  earlier  Latin  version,  in  Polydore  Vergil's 
Historia  Anglia,  1534,  in  John  Rastell's  Pastime  of  People  or  the  Chronicles 
of  Divers  Realms,  1529,  and  in  such  accounts  as  Hall's,  1548,  Graf  ton's, 
1562,  and  Holinshed's,  1578,  and  in  the  work  of  the  contemporary  popular 
chronicler  Stowe,  whose  accounts  date  1561  and  1580. 

14  Churchill,  op.  cit.,  page  267.  See  also  Fuller's  Worthies,  Norwich, 
edition  of  1840,  Vol.  II,  page  491. 

10  Ditto,  page  269. 


G 

Sir  John  Harrington  refers  in  his  "  Apologie  of  Poetrie,"  1591, 
where  he  says : 

"  For  tragedies,  to  omit  other  famous  tragedies,  that  which  was  played 
at  St.  John's  in  Cambridge,  of  Richard  the  Third,  would  move,  I  thinke, 
Phalaris  the  tyrant,  and  terrific  all  tyrannous  minded  men  from  following 
their  foolish  ambitious  humours,  seeing  how  his  ambition  made  him  kill 
his  brother,  his  nephews,  his  wife,  beside  infinit  others,  and  last  of  all, 
after  a  short  and  troublesome  raigne,  to  end  his  miserable  life,  and  to 
have  his  body  harried  after  his  death." 

This  opinion  of  the  "  convicting  "  power  of  the  play  is  quoted 
by  Thomas  Hey  wood  in  his  "  Apology  for  Actors,"  1612,  and 
Meres  in  "  Palladis  Tamia,"  1598,  includes  Dr.  Legge,  of  Cam- 
bridge, among  "  our  best  for  Tragedy,"  mentioning  his  "  two 
famous  tragedies  "  of  "  Richard  the  Third  "  and  "  The  De- 
struction of  Jerusalem."18  The  play  follows  the  story  as 
found  in  Polydore  Vergil  and  More  with  slight  variations  for 
the  sake  of  bringing  it  into  the  Senecan  mould,  as  the  personal 
wooing  of  Anne  by  Richard  and  the  extension  of  the  scenes 
with  the  counsellors. 

Mr.  Churchill  has  pointed  out  that,  while  the  choice  of  the 
subject  of  Richard  the  Third  was  probably  the  result  of  its 
adaptability  to  the  Senecan  idea  of  tragedy,  this  play  neverthe- 
less, in  treating  English  material,  was  the  precursor,  if  not  the 
"  direct  incitement  to  that  dramatizing  from  the  chronicles  of 
the  careers  of  English  monarchs  which  established  a  national 
historical  drama  in  popular  form  upon  the  popular  stage."17 
Since  this  was  a  university  play  and  in  Latin,  it  was  known  to 
a  limited,  but  nevertheless  an  important  audience,  for  Mar- 
lowe, Lodge,  Peele,  and  Greene  were  Cambridge  men  and  must 
have  been  familiar  with  it.  This  first  chronicle  play  must, 
therefore,  have  undoubtedly  helped  to  establish  a  tradition  for 
later  forms.18 

16  Allusion  to  this  play  is  made  by  Thomas  Nash  in  Have  with  you  to 
Saffron   Walden,   1596,   where  he  tells   of  the   mistake   of   an   actor,   who, 
"  in  the  Latine  tragedie  of  King  Richard  cries  Ad  urbs,  ad  urbs,  ad  urbs 
when  his  whole  part  was  no  more  than  Urbs,  urbs,   ad  arma,  ad  arma." 
Churchill,  op.  cit.,  page  265. 

17  Ditto,  page  272. 

18  A  detailed  analysis  of  the  play  is  given  by  Mr.  Churchill,  op.  cit.,  pages 
280-375. 


"  Richard  the  Third  "  soon  became  a  favorite  on  the  public 
stage.  On  June  19,  1594,  Thomas  Creede  entered  on  the 
Stationers'  Register  "  an  enterlude  "  which  was  published  the 
same  year  under  the  title  of  "  The  True  Tragedy  of  Richard 
the  Third:  Wherein  is  showne  the  death  of  Edward  the 
Fourth,  with  the  smothering  of  the  twoo  yoong  Princes  in  the 
Tower:  With  a  lamentable  ende  of  Shore's  wife,  an  example 
for  all  wicked  women.  And  lastly  the  conjunction  and  join- 
ing of  the  two  noble  Houses,  Lancaster  and  Yorke.  As  it  was 
playd  by  the  Queenes  Maiesties  Players."  This  play  seems  to 
have  been  the  outcome  of  the  rivalry  between  the  Queen's 
Company  at  The  Theatre  and  Pembroke's  Men  at  The  Cur- 
tain, in  an  attempt  to  supply  the  popular  demand  for  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  subject  of  the  Lancastrian  and  Yorkist  con- 
flict already  set  forth  in  the  play  given  by  the  Queen's  Com- 
pany, and  called  "  The  First  Part  of  the  Contention  betwixt 
the  two  famous  Houses  of  Yorke  and  Lancaster,  with  the 
death  of  the  good  Duke  Humphrey :  And  the  banishment  and 
death  of  the  Duke  of  Suffolk,  and  the  Tragicall  end  of  the 
proud  Cardinall  of  Winchester,  with  the  notable  Rebellion  of 
Jacke  Cade:  And  the  Duke  of  Yorkes  first  claime  unto  the 
Crowne."19  A  continuation  of  this  play,  the  second  part  of 
"The  Contention,"  also  called  "The  True  Tragedy  of  the 
Duke  of  Yorke,"  was  given  a  little  later  by  the  Earle  of  Pem- 
broke's Men,  a  rival  company,  which  still  later  probably  acted 
the  third  part  of  "  Henry  the  Sixth,"  evidently  based  on  this 
play.  While  these  are  not  preeminently  dealing  with  Richard 
the  Third,  his  character  is  prominent  and  suggests  the  possi- 
bilities which  were  later  carried  out  in  making  him  protagonist 
in  the  play  given  by  the  Queen's  Men.  This  was  in  competi- 
tion, apparently,  with  "  The  Second  Contention,"  and  in  it  we 
find  the  typical  situations  that  have  distinguished  the  plays  on 
Richard  the  Third  throughout. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  The  Rose  was  without  a  play 
upon  a  subject  that,  according  to  Thomas  Nash,  filled  both 

19  F.  G.  Fleay,  A  Biographical  Chronicle  of  the  English  Drama,  Vol.  II, 
page  315.  Also  Churchill,  op.  cit.,  page  485.  Fleay  dates  this  play  about 
1589. 


8 

houses  as  did  those  on  the  life  of  King  Henry  the  Sixth.20 
In  Henslowe's  Diary,  in  the  account  of  the  Earl  of  Sussex' 
Men,  we  find: 

"  Rd  at  buckingam,  the  30  of  desembr  1593    lix*. 

"      i    "   Jenewary  1593    Iviii* 

"     "  "  "    10    "         "  "      xxii- 

"     "  "  "    27    "         "  "      xviii'"21 

This  play  of  "  Buckingham  "  may  have  been  a  version  of  the 
story  of  Richard  the  Third  with  the  emphasis  upon  this  charac- 
ter, his  "  rising  "  and  overthrow  offering  a  tragic  theme  almost 
as  notable  as  that  of  Richard  himself.  There  is  a  possibility 
also22  that  the  entries  for  December  31,  and  January  16,  1593, 
in  regard  to  a  play  of  "  Richard  the  confeser  "  may  be  on  the 
same  subject,  or  at  least  connected  with  it. 

It  is  seen,  therefore,  that  when  the  play  of  "  Richard  the 
Third,"  which  we  attribute  to  Shakespeare,23  appeared,  prob- 
ably at  The  Theatre,24  and  probably  in  the  season  of  1593-4, 
there  were  several  plays  in  the  possession  of  companies  on  the 
same  subject,  and  perhaps  more  than  one  actually  on  the 
boards  at  the  same  time. 

The  theatrical  situation  in  London  in  1593-4  should  be 
noticed.  The  old  Queen's  Company  had  been  broken  up,  the 
children's  companies,  for  one  reason  or  another,  had  been 

20  "  How  would  it  have  joyed  brave  Talbot,  the  terror  of  the  French,  to 
think  that  after  he  had  been  two  hundred  years  in  his  tomb  he  should 
triumph  again  on  the  stage,  and  have  his  bones  embalmed  with  the  tears 
of  ten  thousand  spectators  (at  least  at  several  times)  who,  in  the  tragedian 
that  represents  his  person,  behold  him  fresh  bleeding."     Pierce  Penniless, 
1592. 

21  Shakespeare  Society  Publications,  1845,  pages  31-3. 

22  According  to  J.  P.  Collier's  edition  of  Henslowe's  Diary,  Shakespeare 
Society  Publications,  1845,  page  31. 

28  F.  G.  Fleay  (Life  of  Shakespeare,  pages  118  and  276-7)  believes  that 
Marlowe  left  this  play  incomplete  at  his  death,  and  that  it  was  finished  by 
Shakespeare.  Halliwell-Phillips  (Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare, 
page  94)  thinks  it  is  essentially  Shakespeare's,  but  contains  remnants  of  an 
older  play.  J.  R.  Lowell,  on  aesthetic  grounds,  denies  that  Shakespeare 
did  more  than  to  remodel  an  old  play.  See  Latest  Literary  Essays  and 
Addresses. 

24  Fleay,  History  of  the  London  Stage,  page  154. 


9 

inhibited,  not  to  appear  in  public  again  until  1596,  and  from 
the  large  number  of  players'  companies  of  the  earlier  time, 
three  had  come  to  be  recognized  as  the  only  ones  authorized 
within  the  liberties  of  the  city,  namely,  Lord  Strange's,  later 
the  Lord  Chamberlain's,  the  Earl  of  Pembroke's,  and  the  Lord 
Admiral's.  By  this  time  also,  from  the  six  public  playing 
places  open  two  years  before,  only  three  were  now  maintained, 
The  Theatre,  The  Curtain,  and  The  Rose.  To  these,  however, 
must  be  added  the  place,  theatre  or  not,  at  Newington  Butts,25 
which  was  used  in  1594  by  the  Chamberlain's  and  Admiral's 
men.  The  occupation  of  these  theatres  by  the  different  com- 
panies is  hard  to  follow,  for  a  company  shifted  frequently 
from  one  to  another.  Thus,  according  to  Mr.  Fleay's  re- 
searches, Pembroke's  Company  was  at  The  Curtain  from  1589 
to  1597,  and  at  intervals  from  1597  to  1600,  when  they  dis- 
appear, they  joined  with  the  Admiral's  Men  at  The  Rose.  The 
Chamberlain's  Company,  of  most  interest  to  us,  also  had 
changing  fortunes  about  this  time.  Their  home  was  The 
Theatre,  but  in  June  of  1594  we  find  them  playing  in  alterna- 
tion with  the  Admiral's  Men  at  Newington  Butts,  and  under 
the  management  of  Henslowe,  of  The  Rose.  In  October  they 
were  back  at  The  Theatre,  and  it  is  here  that  "  Richard  the 
Third  "  was  probably  produced.  Plays  as  well  as  companies 
were  shifted  about.  Thus,  the  London  theatrical  season  of 
1593  had  been  abruptly  ended  in  April  by  the  plague,  and  the 
houses  remained  closed  until  Christmas.  In  this  time  Pem- 
broke's Men  were  unsuccessful  in  their  tour  in  the  country, 
and  soon  after  sold  several  of  their  plays  to  the  Chamber- 
lain's Men.26  Some  of  these  plays  the  Chamberlain's  Company 
acted  during  the  next  season.27 

From  these  few  facts,  it  may  be  seen  that  the  relations  of 
the  various  companies  to  each  other  were  very  close.    Several 

28  See  T.  F.  Ordish,  Early  London  Theatres,  Chapters  IV  and  VI. 

26  Among  these  were  Edward  the  Third  and  The  Contention. 

27  The  foregoing  statements  based  on  F.  G.  Fleay's  History  of  the  Eng- 
lish Stage,  serve  to  illustrate  the  probable  general  conditions,  although  some 
of  the  facts  in  detail  may  be  open  to  question.      For  a  discussion  of  these 
matters,   see   W.   W.   Greg's   edition   of  Henslowe's  Diary,   Vol.    II,   which 
has  appeared  since  this  was  written. 


10 

were  at  times  under  one  management,  as  the  Sussex,  Admiral's 
and  Chamberlain's  are  shown  to  have  been  in  Henslowe's 
accounts;28  plays  were  sold  from  one  company  to  another; 
actors  and  writers  changed  about,  and  the  companies  played 
in  different  theatres.  In  such  a  state  of  affairs  not  only  were 
successful  themes  worked  up  into  rival  plays  by  several  com- 
panies, but  telling  theatrical  effects  and  situations  were  bor- 
rowed and  imitated.  An  example  of  the  theatrical  policy  of 
the  day  is  seen  in  the  list  of  the  York  and  Lancaster  plays  in 
the  possession  of  the  companies  at  this  time,  more  than  one 
of  which  were  being  acted  at  the  same  time.  Pembroke's  Men 
were  playing  "  The  Contention,"  Part  II,  at  The  Curtain,  1589 
to  1591;  the  Queen's  Men  Marlowe's  (?)  early  version  of 
"  Henry  the  Sixth,"  Part  I,  at  The  Theatre  in  1588-9,  and 
"The  True  Tragedy"  in  1591;  Strange's  Men  gave  "Henry 
the  Sixth,"  Part  I,  with  the  Talbot  scenes,  at  The  Rose  seven- 
teen times  from  March  3,  1592,  to  January  31,  1593.  Hen- 
slowe's "  Richard  the  Confessor,"  a  possible  Richard  the  Third 
play,  ran  from  December  31,  1583,  to  January  16,  1594,  at 
The  Rose,  and  "  Buckingham  "  from  December  30  to  January 
27.29  The  Chamberlain's  Men  at  the  same  time  were  probably 
playing  "  Richard  the  Third  "  at  The  Theatre.30  A  "  hit  "  in 
material  or  staging  was  eagerly  sought  in  this  theatre-going 
age,  and  imitation  of  a  success  became  inevitable."31 

28  Henslowe's  Diary.    Edited  by  W.  W.  Greg. 

29  See  Fleay,  History  of  the  English  Stage.    See  also  Revels  Accounts. 

80  Fleay's  conjecture  of  a  performance  of  Richardus  Tertius  before  the 
Queen,   September,   1592,  is  interesting  in  the  light  of  the  vogue  of  the 
subject  at  this  time. 

81  The  popularity  of  the  subject  continued  long  after  the  height  of  the 
vogue   of   the    chronicle   play.      In    1610,    Robert   Niccol's    new    edition    of 
The  Mirror  for  Magistrates  appeared,  in  which  there  were  two  poems  on 
Richard  the  Third,  The  Two  Princes,  and  Richard  III,  the  last  to  replace 
Segar's  poem,  Richard  Plantagenet,  Duke  of  Gloucester,  in  the  1563  edition. 
In  1614  a  poem  appeared  called  The  Ghost  of  Richard  the  Third,  Expressing 
himself e  in  these  three  Parts.      I.  His  Character.      2.  His  Legend.      3.  His 
Tragedie,  containing  more  of  him  than  hath  been  heretofore  shewed:  either 
in  Chronicles,  Playes  or  Poems.      The  author  signed  himself  C.  B.,  and  is 
supposed  to   be   Christopher  Brooke.       Sir  John   Beaumont  wrote  a  poem 
on  Bosworth  Field  in  1629.     In  ballad  literature  Richard  the  Third  figures 


11 

Turning  now  to  the  drama  of  the  time,  we  find  a  similar 
state  of  affairs,  i.  e.,  a  close  relation  between  authors,  which 
furthered  imitation  and  tended  toward  the  establishment  of 

in  R.  Johnson's  Buckingham,  in  his  collection  called  The  Crowne-Gardland 
of  Goulden  Roses,  published  in  1612,  and  going  through  many  subsequent 
editions.  (See  Publications  of  the  Percy  Society,  Vol.  6.)  This  was  to 
be  sung  to  the  tune  of  Jane  Shore,  an  air  frequently  referred  to,  but  which 
has  never  been  recovered.  (J.  P.  Collier's  Extracts  from  the  Register  of 
the  Stationers  Company.}  About  this  time  too,  must  have  appeared  the 
collection  called  The  Golden  Garland  of  Princely  Delight,  in  which  there 
was  a  song  on  The  most  cruel  Murther  of  Edward  V.  The  thirteenth 
edition  of  this  came  out  in  1690.  There  were  innumerable  chap-books 
also  during  this  period.  Plays  on  Richard  the  Third  continued  to  appear. 
In  Henslowe's  accounts  for  the  year  1599,  we  find  this  entry: 
"  Receaved  of  Mr  Ph.  Hinchlow,  by  a  note  under"" 

the  hand  of  Mr  Rob.  Shaw,  in  full  payment, 

for  the  second  pt  of  Henrye  Richmond,  sold 

to  him  and  his  Companye,  the  some  of  eight 

pownds  current  money,  the  viiith  daye  of 

november  1599.  .  .  . 
This  may  refer  to  a  play  on  Richard  the  Third  with  the  emphasis  upon 
the  character  of  Henry  Richmond.  This  is  further  borne  out  by  the  dis- 
covery among  the  papers  of  Edward  Alleyn  at  Dulwich  College,  on  the 
back  of  a  note  from  one  Robert  Shaa  to  Henslowe,  of  the  following 
memorandum : 

"  i  see.     Wm.  Wor.  and  Ansill,  and  to  them  the  plowghmen. 

2  see.     Richard  and  Q.  Eliza.  Catesbie,  Lovell,  Rice  ap.  Tho.,  Blunt, 

Banester. 

3  see.     Ansell.  Daugr :  Denys,  Hen,  Oxf.  Courtney,  Bouchier  and  Grace. 

To  them  Rice  ap.  Tho.  and  his  Souldiers. 

4  see.     Milton,  Ban.  his  wyfe  and  Children. 

5  see.     K.  Rich.  Gates,  Lovell,  Norf.  Northumb.  Percye." 

Collier  refers  this  to  Jonson's  Richard  Crookback  of  1602,  but  Mr.  Fleay 
{Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage,  Vol.  II,  page  284),  thinks  it  be- 
longs to  the  second  part  of  Richmond,  while  Mr.  Churchill  {Richard  the 
Third  up  to  Shakespeare,  page  531),  believes  it  "is  a  bit  from  a  play  used 
during  this  period  (i.  e.,  the  nineties),  and  replaced  by  Jonson's  Richard 
Crookback  in  1602.  This  play  of  Jonson's  we  know  only  by  name,  from  the 
entry  in  Henslowe's  Diary : 

"  Lent  unto  bengemy  Johnsone  at  the  apoynt-     ~\ 
ment  of  E.  Alleyn  and  Wm  Birde,  the  24  of 
June  1602,  in  earneste  of  a  Boocke  called  lx11 

Richard  crookbacke,  and  for  new  adicijons  for 
Jeronymo,  the  some  of     ...  J 


12 

types.  This  is  seen  in  an  examination  of  the  plays  which  were 
produced  at  this  period.  Leaving  out  of  consideration  the 
comedies  as  having  little  to  do  with  our  question,  we  find  nine 
extant  histories  and  tragedies  appearing  in  the  twenty  years 
between  1560  and  1580,  or  roughly,  between  "  Gorboduc  "  and 
"The  Famous  Victories."  I  give  the  list  below.32  These 
plays,  with  the  exception  of  "  Apius  and  Virginia,"  are  either 
Senecan  in  general  character,  as  "  Gorboduc "  "  Jocasta," 
"  Tancred  and  Gismunda,"  and  "  The  Misfortunes  of 
Arthur,"33  or  they  illustrate  some  of  the  many  modifications 
of  the  morality,  as  in  the  revenge  play  of  "  Horestes,"  or  the 
biography  of  "  Cambyses."34  Both  classes  have  contributed 
to  the  history  of  the  drama.  The  indebtedness  to  the 
classical  influence  has  been  noted  from  the  time  of  Nash's 
Preface  to  Greene's  "  Menaphon,"  was  discussed  by  Warton 
in  his  "  History  of  Poetry,"  and  has  received  attention  from 
such  writers  as  Collier,  Ward,  Symonds,  Klein,  R.  Fischer, 
J.  W.  Cunliffe  and  others.85  The  contributions  especially  to 

There  are  several  allied  plays  in  this  period.  In  1600,  Hey  wood's 
Edward  the  Fourth,  in  two  parts,  was  published,  after  having  been  acted 
by  Derby's  Men  at  The  Curtain.  The  second  part  gives  the  story  of  Jane 
Shore  with  scenes  in  which  Richard  the  Third  figures,  though  not  prom- 
inently. About  the  same  time  Day  and  Chettle  wrote  a  Shores  Wife,  of 
which  we  know  nothing  more  than  the  name.  We  have  no  information 
either  of  A  Tragedy  of  Richard  the  Third  or  the  English  Prophet,  by 
Samuel  Rowley,  licensed  in  1623.  Fleay  says  that  it  was  played  at  The 
Fortune  by  Palsgrave's  Men  in  1623.  (History  of  the  London  Stage,  page 
307.)  These  are  the  only  plays  of  which  we  have  any  information  up  to 
the  closing  of  the  theatres. 

**  Cambyses,  1561.  Gorboduc,  1562.  Jocasta,  1566.  Albyon  Knight, 
1566.  Horestes,  1567.  Apius  and  Virginia,  1567-8.  King  Johan,  1538,  and 
The  Misfortunes  of  Arthur,  1588,  belong  here,  although  they  do  not  come 
within  these  limits.  In  addition  to  these,  a  number  of  Latin  plays  on 
chronicle  subjects  were  produced.  We  are  directly  concerned  with 
Richardus  Tertius,  1579.  Descriptions  and  discussions  of  these  may  be 
found  in  Schelling,  The  English  Chronicle  Play,  and  in  Fleay,  Biographical 
Chronicle  of  the  English  Drama. 

83  For  an  analysis  of  the  Senecan  characteristics  of  The  Misfortunes  of 
Arthur,  see  J.  W.  Cunliffe,  The  Influence  of  Seneca  on  Elizabethan  Tragedy, 
Appendix  II. 

84  And  in  the  earlier  social-polemical  play  of  King  Johan. 

86  See  J.  W.  Cunliffe,  op.  cit.,  for  a  brief  history  of  its  treatment. 


13 


be  noted  are  the  "  high  "  style  in  the  treatment  of  lofty  themes, 
the  better  ordering  and  limitation  of  act  and  scene,  and  the 
facility  in  furthering  the  narrative  gained  by  the  character  of 
the  messenger.36  In  the  moralities,  the  methods  of  presenta- 
tion are  borrowed  largely  from  the  older  religious  drama,  and 
thus,  especially  in  regard  to  staging,  these  plays  are  highly 
interesting.  While  the  figures  of  Johan,  Horestes,  and  Cam- 
byses  are  little  more  than  abstractions,  yet  they  show  the 
popular  and  traditional  ideas  of  stage  propriety  in  dealing 
with  kingly  and  national  subjects. 

Of  the  plays  immediately  succeeding  these  early  ones  up  to 
1594,  about  forty  are  histories37  and  tragedies;38  in  which 

K  An  important  influence  came  indirectly  from  the  Senecan  play  through 
Kyd's  adaptations  of  Senecan  devices  in  The  Spanish  Tragedy,  1585.  See 
Schelling,  op.  cit.,  page  25. 

17  These  may  be  tragedies,  comedies,  or  tragi-comedies. 

88  The  following  are  the  extant  tragedies  and  history  plays  produced  be- 
tween 1580  and  1594. 

Play.  Date. 

Solyman  and  Perseda  1583 

First  Part  of  Jeronimo  c.  1584 

Arden  of  Feversham  1585 

Locrine  1586 

Jack  Straw  1587 

i   and  2  Tamburlaine  1587 

Wounds  of  Civil  War 
Famous  Victories  c.  1588 

Selimus  1588 

Troublesome  Raigne 
Alphonsus  of  Arragon  c.  1588 

Dr.  Faustus  1588 

Spanish  Tragedy  c.  1588 

David  and  Bathseba 
Leir 

George  a  Green 
i  Henry  VI  (Marlowe's) 
Battle  of  Alcazar 

i    Contention  1589 

Jew  of  Malta 

Friar   Bacon  1589 

Fair  Em  1590 

Edward  I 


Place. 

Company. 

S.  R. 

Theatre 

Queen's 

Nov.  20,  1592 

" 

" 

1605. 

"  (?) 

" 

Apr.     3,  1592. 

? 

? 

Jul.    20,  1594- 

Theatre 

Queen's 

Oct.  23,  1593- 

In  City 

Adm'l's 

Aug.  14,  1590. 

" 

" 

May  24,  1594. 

Theatre 

Queen's 

May  14,  1594. 

* 

" 

1594- 

" 

" 

i59i. 

In  City 


1588-9        Theatre 


In  City 
Theatre 


Adm'l's 


Queen's 


Adm'l's 
Queen's 


Cross  Keys        Strange's 


Jan.  7,  1 60 1. 
Oct.  6,  1592. 

May  14,  1594- 
it 

Apr.     i,  1595. 

1594. 

Mar.  12,  1594. 
May  17,  1594- 
May  14,  IS94. 

1631. 
Oct.     8,  1593. 


14 

three  well-marked  types  may  be  distinguished;  the  chronicle 
history,  the  Marlowean  play,  and  the  neo-Senecan  tragedy  of 
Kyd.  These  three  classes  may  be  differentiated  according  to 
the  material  of  the  plot,  the  structure,  characterization,  and 
stage  effects,  but  they  are  not  mutually  exclusive.  There  is 
hardly  a  serious  play  after  the  appearance  of  "  Tamburlaine  "  / 
in  1586,  which  is  not  influenced  by  Marlowe's  heroic  ideals, 
often,  at  the  same  time,  showing  the  influence  of  Kyd.  Many 
of  these  plays  deal  with  subjects  from  the  national  chronicles 
and  show  in  combination  with  the  traits  of  the  work  of  Mar- 
lowe and  Kyd,  what  came  to  be  considered  the  essential  marks 
of  the  chronicle  play.  In  addition,  as  a  result  of  the  great 
vogue  of  this  latter  type  at  this  time,  there  are  a  number  of 
plays  which,  while  the  material  is  not  drawn  from  the  English 
chronicles,  in  structure,  spirit,  and  general  character,  are 
chronicle  plays.39 

Such  being  the  theatrical  and  dramatic  situation  of  the  time, 
it  is  possible  to  learn  much  of  the  character  of  "  Richard  the 
Third  "  as  a  stage  play  through  a  study  of  this  preceding 
drama,  especially  of  the  plays  produced  during  the  ten  years 
immediately  before  its  appearance.  Disregarding  for  the 
nonce  the  special  marks  of  Marlowe  and  Kyd  in  these  plays, 

Edward  III  1590  Curtain  Pemb'k's         Dec.     i,  1595. 

2  Contention  "  "  1595. 

Edward   II  1590-1  "  "  Jul.      6,  1591. 

James  IV  1590  Theatre  Queen's  May  14,  1594. 

Nobody  and  Somebody  "  ?  ?  Mar.  12,  1606. 

True  Tragedy  1591  Theatre  Queen's  Jun.   19,  1594. 

Woodstock  c.     "  "  "  (Fleay.     ?) 

Romeo  and  Juliet  "  In  City  Adm'l's 

Dido  "  Children  of  Chapel. 

Knack  to  Know  a  Knave  1592  Rose  Strange's        Jan.     7,  1594. 

i  Henry  VI  (Shakespeare's)  1592  "  "  Feb.  25,  1597-8. 

Massacre  at  Paris  1593  "  " 

Titus  Andronicus  1594  Sussex,  Feb.     6,  1593-4. 

Richard  III  "  Theatre  Chamb.  Oct.  29,  1597. 

Sir  Thomas  More  1595-6  "  " 

(Dyce  1590) 

"For  a  fuller  treatment  of  this  subject,  see  A.  H.  Thorndike's 
Tragedy,  especially  Chapter  IV.  To  Professor  Thorndike  the  writer  is  per- 
sonally indebted  for  many  suggestions  in  this  chapter. 


15 

and  considering  the  body  of  plays  based  upon  chronicles,  either 
really  or  nominally,  we  find  a  sufficiently  constant  recurrence 
of  situations  and  characteristics  to  constitute  a  well-marked 
type.  This  type  may  be  characterized  generally  as  dealing 
with  large  national  questions,  the  course  of  events  often  ex- 
tending through  a  long  period  of  years,  and  concerned  with 
some  national  crisis,  as  the  fate  of  a  king,  or  the  opposition 
of  a  foe.  The  interest  centers  in  the  story,  which -is  generally 
one  of  a  popular  nature,  and  often  well-known  to  the  audience 
in  ballad  and  legend.  As  in  other  popular  forms  of  the  drama, 
the  number  of  characters  is  large,  and  the  scenes  are  of  wide 
variety  of  appeal,  and  usually  rapid  in  succession.  Favorite 
situations,  which  are  found  constantly  recurring,  may  be 
classed  as  follows: 

I.  Martial  Scenes. — There  is  an  invariable  group  of  situa- 
tions having  to  do  with  the  preparation  for  war  or  with  the 
progress  of  the  battle.     Such  are  the  embassy,  the  defiance, 
boast,   threat,   denunciation,   parley   and   quarrel,   the   battle, 
whether  on  the  stage  or  behind  the  scenes,  the  storming  of  a 
city  wall,  the  single  encounter,  and  the  flight  from  the  field. 
All  these  occur  so  frequently  that  particular  examples  are 
unnecessary.     Other  scenes  of  this  sort,  not  so  frequent,  but 
effective  when  they  are  introduced,  are  the  refusal  to  sur- 
render, the  supplication  to  a  conqueror,  and  the  reception  of  a 
deliverer. 

II.  Scenes  of  Wonder. — The  interest  in  the  story  is  whetted 
by  the   introduction   of   scenes   dealing   with   the   wonderful. 
This  element  may  be  introduced  by  means  of  prophecies  and 
their  fulfillment,40  or  by  supernatural  events,  such  as  Queen 
Elinor's  "sinking"  in  "Edward  the  First,"41  or  the  appear- 
ance of  the  five  moons  in  "  The  Troublesome  Raigne,"  or  of 
the  three  suns  in  "  The  Contention,"  Part  II,  and  "  Henry  the 
Sixth,"  Part  III. 

III.  Comic  Scenes. — There  is  invariably  a  comic  element. 
This  often  centers  about  the  life  of  the  common  soldier.     He 

40  Troublesome  Raigne,  Edward  the  First,  Edward  the  Third,  etc. 

41  Or  Lady  Elinor  and  the  wizard  in  Henry  the  Sixth,  Part  II. 


16 

is  levied  unwillingly,42  or  he  is  thievish  and  ridiculously  boast- 
ful.43 The  comic  scenes  as  a  whole  are  not  distinctive,  but 
deal  with  the  material  found  commonly  successful  on  the 
stage. 

IV.  Political  Wooing  Scenes. — In  these  plays  the  political 
marriage  is  presented  as  a  motive,  as  in  "  The  Famous  Vic- 
tories," and  "  The  Troublesome  Raigne."44 

V.  Terminal  Scenes. — Stages  in  the  story  are  marked  by 
eloquent    scenes    of    self -congratulation    after    a    battle,45    or 
reconciliations  of  opponents.40     The  funeral  or  the  preparation 
for  it  is  common  here  as  in  other  Elizabethan  tragedy. 

VI.  Typical    Characters. — Consonant    with    these    typical 
scenes,  the  characters  fall  into  well-defined  types,  as  the  war- 
rior, whether  king  or  subject,  the  popular  hero,  like  Falcon- 
bridge  in  "  The  Troublesome  Raigne,"  the  Black  Prince  in 
"  Edward  the  Third,"  or  Richmond  in  "  The  True  Tragedy," 
the  loyal  statesman,  like  Humphrey  and  Cromwell,  the  queen 
bewailing  misfortune,  like  Constance,  Margaret,  and  Anne  of 
Bohemia,  and  the  conquered  king,  often  in  great  distress,  as 
in   "Locrine,"    "  Selimus,"   "Wounds   of    Civil   War,"    and 
"  Alphonsus  of  Arragon." 

VII.  Stage  Effects. — The  plays  are  characterized  by  elab- 
orate devices  for  stage  effects.     In  this  they  were  undoubtedly 
influenced  by  the  processions  and  royal  progresses  of  the  time, 
and  probably  owe  something  to  the  pageants  of  the  medieval 
drama.47     We  find  the  predominance  of  such  scenes  as  crown- 

41  The  Famous  Victories.     Also  in  Locrine. 

**  Jack  Straw,  The  Famous  Victories,  Locrine. 

44  Also  in  Henry  the  Sixth,  Part  I,  Margaret  and  Suffolk.  In  slightly 
different  form  also  in  Tamburlaine,  Locrine,  Alphonsus  of  Arragon.  Mr. 
Churchill  (op.  cit.,  page  349)  points  out  a  similar  case  in  Mad  Hercules, 
Act  II,  Scene  2,  and  in  Richardus  Tertius,  Actio  III,  Scene  4.  Theodor 
Vatke  suggests  the  same  comparison,  in  Jahrbuch  des  Deutschen  Gesell- 
schaft,  Vol.  IV,  page  64. 

48  Henry  the  Sixth,  Part  III,  Contention,  Part  II,  Jack  Straw.  Also  in 
Tamburlaine,  Locrine,  Alphonsus  of  Arragon,  and  Battle  of  Alcazar. 

"Henry  the  Fifth,  Troublesome  Raigne,  James  the  Fourth,  etc. 

41  Found  frequently  in  Greek  drama.  The  "  shows  "  in  Richardus  Tertius 
take  the  form  of  processions. 


17 

ings,48  marriages,  betrothals,49  ceremonies  connected  with  arm- 
ing or  "  dubbing,"50  the  issuing  of  proclamations,51  pen- 
nances,52  "  shows,"  or  tableaux.53  In  the  martial  scenes  much 
is  made  of  the  march  to  battle,  or  the  rush  of  soldiers  across 
the  stage,54  or  the  effectiveness  is  heightened  by  frequent 
"  alarums,"  by  the  sennet  at  the  entrance  and  exit  of  the  king, 
by  the  flourish  of  trumpets  accompanying  the  army,  by  the 
firing  of  cannon,  or  "  noise  without."55  Thunder  and  light- 
ning, darkness,  or  other  devices  heighten  the  effect  of  the 
scenes  of  wonder. 

VIII.  Structure  and  Style. — The  chronicle  play  is  essentially 
epic  in  form.  While  there  is  some  selection  of  material,  im- 
posed by  the  central  interest  in  the  life  of  the  king,  or  in  the 
particular  national  struggle,  the  tendency  is  to  present  every- 
thing upon  the  stage.  In  this  the  chronicle  play  has  much  in 
common  with  the  dramatization  of  the  Bible  narrative,  the  aim 
in  both  cases  being  the  same,  namely  the  presentation  of  a 
story.  In  style,  these  plays  are  characterized  generally  by  ora- 
torical effects,  which  display  themselves  in  such  passages  as 
the  reports  of  heroic  deeds,56  descriptions  of  England  and 
references  to  her  past,57  patriotic  harangues  before  an  army,58 
and  high-resolved  defiances. 

Such  being  the  characteristics  of  the  chronicle  as  such,  we 
may  now  turn  to  the  influence  upon  it  of  the  epoch-making 
plays  of  Marlowe.  But  before  noticing  the  important  innova- 
tions effected  by  them,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  the  general 
characteristics  of  his  work.  The  peculiar  Marlowean  feature 

48  Passim. 

49  Edward  the  First,  James  the  Fourth. 

M  Edward  the  Third,  Contention  Part  II,  Sir  Thomas  More. 
§1  Jack  Straw,  Contention  Part  I,  Edward  the  First.      Also  Promos  and 
Cassandra. 

"Henry  the  Sixth  Part  I,  The  True  Tragedy. 

M  Contention  Part  II,  Edward  the  First,  James  the  Fourth,  Locrine. 

14  Passim. 

"  Passim. 

88  Famous  Victories,  Edward  the  Third. 

"  Henry  the  Sixth  Part  II,  Contention  Part  I,  Locrine,  Edward  the  First. 

K  Edward   the  Third. 

3 


18 

to  be  noted  is  the  entirely  new  element  in  his  conception  of 
heroic  figures,  and  in  his  lofty  ideas  of  the  possibilities  of 
human  achievement.  The  modifications  growing  out  of  this 
new  conception  are  the  intense  centering  of  attention  upon  the 
person  of  the  hero,  and  the  suppression  of  all  scenes  not  closely 
connected  with  this  central  figure.  This  results  in  a  unity 
quite  at  variance  with  the  general  epic  quality  of  the  early  his- 
tories which  we  have  been  considering.  In  this  intenser 
focusing,  where  some  overruling  passion  is  made  the  motive, 
we  have  a  new  and  remarkable  development  of  the  villain- 
hero,  as  in  "  Tamburlaine,"  "  The  Jew  of  Malta,"  and  "  Faus- 
tus," and  the  chronicle  is  transformed  into  a  play  of  tragic 
rather  than  of  epic  interest.  An  illustration  of  Marlowe's 
method  of  suppressing  all  extraneous  matter  is  found  in  his 
peculiar  modification  of  the  comic  element.  When  the  comic 
appears  in  his  plays,  it  grows  out  of  the  situation  and  is  never 
so  distinctly  a  by-play  as  in  the  epic  type  of  chronicle  play.58 
For  this  reason  it  is  often  grotesque  rather  than  broadly  comic. 
This  seems  to  have  led  to  the  frequent  statement  that  this 
element  is  lacking.  In  "  Tamburlaine,"60  the  scenes  dealing 
with  the  foolish  king  Mycetes,61  the  war  of  words  between 
Zenocrate  and  Zabina,62  the  inert  son  of  Tamburlaine,68  and 
the  artless  captain,64  were  undoubtedly  grotesquely  comic.  It 
may  be  also  that  the  Bajazet  scenes66  had  a  similar  effect  to  an 
Elizabethan  audience.  The  same  elements  of  the  grotesque 
are  seen  in  the  trick  put  upon  Jacomo,66  in  the  ironical  justice 

"The  comic  scenes  in  Dr.  Faustus,  which  may  seem  to  be  an  exception 
to  this,  clearly  bear  the  marks  of  other  hands  than  Marlowe's.  For  a 
discussion  of  this,  see  A.  W.  Ward's  edition  of  Faustus,  Appendix  A,  by 
F.  G.  Fleay. 

80  The  first  editor  of  Tamburlaine  says  that  he  omitted  "  many  fond  and 
frivolous  gestures"  from  the  play  as  given  on  the  stage.  These  were 
probably  added  by  the  actors  and  were  undoubtedly  of  a  broadly  comic 
character. 

M  Tamburlaine,  Part  I,  Act  I,  Scene  i,  and  Act  II,  Scene  3. 

"Ditto,  Act  III,  Scene  3. 

88  Tamburlaine,  Part  II,  Act  IV,  Scene  i. 

M  Ditto,  Act  V,  Scene  i. 

88  Part  I,  Act  IV,  Scenes  2  and  4. 

88  Jew  of  Malta,  Act  IV,  Scene  3. 


19 

of  Barabas  being  caught  in  his  own  trap,67  in  the  folly  of  the 
scheming  Ithomar,68  and  in  the  ridiculous  figure  of  the  Jew.69 
When  we  turn  to  "  Faustus,"  the  character  of  the  comic  ele- 
ment here,  more  distinctly  a  by-play  than  in  any  of  the  others, 
may  be  accounted  for  by  the  close  adherence  to  the  source, 
from  which  the  comic  passages  are  copied  with  great  fidelity. 
They  are,  however,  with  characteristic  Marlowean  intensity, 
kept,  like  the  rest  of  the  play,  within  the  realm  of  the  magical. 
In  "  Edward  the  Second,"  while  there  seems  to  be  no  comic 
relief  to  the  tragedy,  there  certainly  might  have  been  oppor- 
tunity in  the  "  business  "  here  and  there  for  comic  touches, 
after  the  manner  of  Marlowe,  especially  in  the  characters  of 
Gaveston  and  Spenser. 

As  a  result  of  this  intenser  centering  of  interest,  Marlowe 
developed  into  greater  effectiveness  situations  that  had  been 
of  little  more  than  narrative  value  in  the  chronicle  plays.  This 
can  be  seen  by  comparing  the  wooing  of  Katherine  in  "  The 
Famous  Victories  "  with  the  similar  scene  of  Tamburlaine's 
wooing  of  Zenocrate,70  or  by  noting  the  importance  and  effect- 
iveness of  murder  scenes  after  the  model  was  set  in  "  Edward 
the  Second."71  The  splendor  and  impressiveness  of  Zeno- 
crate's  funeral  outdoes  all  the  earlier  attempts  at  making 
this  favorite  scene  an  effective  one.  So  it  is  with  many  of 
his  other  elaborations  of  novel  and  striking  scenes,  as  Tam- 
burlaine's entrance  when  drawn  by  the  "  pampered  jades,"72 
the  panoply  of  Scythian  chieftains,  the  gorgeousness  of  ori- 
ental accoutrements,  or  the  Jew  tortured  in  his  cauldron,73 
the  apparitions  of  Mephistopheles  and  his  band  of  devils,74 
and  the  writing  of  Faustus'  fearful  compact  in  his  own  blood.75 

6T  Ditto,  Act  V,  Scene  6. 

68  Ditto,  Act  IV,  Scenes  4  and  6. 

69  Barabas  was  represented  with  a  large  false  nose.      In  Rowley's  Search 
for  Money,  1609,  allusion  is  made  to  the  "  artificall  Jewe  of  Maltaes  nose." 
Mermaid  Series  edition  of  Marlowe,  page  264. 

70  Tamburlaine,  Part  I,  Act  I,  Scene  2. 

71  Act  V,  Scene  5. 

72  Tamburlaine,  Part  II,  Act  IV,  Scene  4. 

73  Jew  of  Malta,  Act  V,  Scene  6. 

74  Faustus,  Scenes  5  and  6. 
'"Ditto,  Scene  5. 


20 

The  popularity  of  these  plays  was  enormous  and  their  influ- 
ence far-reaching.76  "  Tamburlaine  "  was  the  one  most  imme- 
diately influential.  Of  direct  imitations,  the  earliest  are 
"  Selimus  "77  and  Greene's  "  Alphonsus  of  Arragon."78  Peek's 
"  Battle  of  Alcazar,"  acted  in  1592,  with  the  hero  of  overween- 
ing assurance,  Stukeley,  showed  the  lasting  popularity  of  the 
type.  Of  these,  "  Selimus  "  alone  retains  the  broadly  comic 
element ;  in  "  Alphonsus  of  Arragon,"  such  comic  touches  as 
appear  are  in  the  manner  of  Marlowe.  "  The  Battle  of 
Alcazar,"  in  its  unrelieved  gloom,  as  well  as  in  other  charac- 
teristics, illustrates  as  well  the  third  great  dramatic  influence 
of  the  time. 

Kyd's  "  Spanish  Tragedy "  appeared  in  1585-7,  and  was 
very  popular,  as  seen  from  Henslowe's  entries  and  the  con- 
stant references  to  the  play.  Professor  A.  H.  Thorndike  has 
shown78  that  it  was  this  play  that  brought  into  prominence  in 
the  Elizabethan  drama  the  motive  of  revenge,  with  its  attend- 
ant motives  of  intrigue  and  bloodshed,  and  further  character- 
ized by  the  presence  of  ghostly  monition,  and  of  the  reflective 
element  in  the  soliloquies.  In  the  plays  we  have  just  consid- 
ered, we  find  these  elements  present  in  addition  to  the  modi- 
fications imitated  from  Marlowe.80  "  Locrine,"  "  Alphonsus 
of  Arragon,"  and  "  The  Battle  of  Alcazar  "  are  all  revenge 
plays.  "  Locrine  "  and  "  The  Battle  of  Alcazar  "  develop  this 
motive  throughout ;  "  Alphonsus  of  Arragon  "  is  a  revenge 

"  Plays  of  this  type  were  satirized  by  Hall  in  his  Virgidenarium,  Book  I, 
Satire  3. 

"Anonymous.    Acted  about  1588. 

"Acted  about  1588. 

"  The  Relation  of  Hamlet  to  Contemporary  Revenge  Plays.  Publications 
of  the  Modern  Language  Association,  1902. 

"*  Mr.  Churchill  has  pointed  out  that  The  True  Tragedy,  while  a  chronicle 
play  in  important  features,  was  influenced  by  Marlowe's  Tamburlaine  and 
the  revenge  plays,  and  that  owing  to  these  influences,  "  as  a  History  play 
The  True  Tragedy  is  undoubtedly  the  first  in  which  the  interest  is  fixed 
upon  one  central  and  dominating  figure,"  and  adds,  "  The  Richard  of  the 
True  Tragedy  is  not  only  central  but  dominating,  not  merely  attracts  the 
chief  interest  but  absorbs  practically  all  of  it."  Op.  cit.,  pages  398-9.  An 
analysis  of  the  influences  upon  it  and  its  relation  to  Richard  the  Third 
is  given  on  pages  396  to  528. 


21 

play  in  the  first  two  acts,  it  then  changes  to  a  play  of  the  con- 
quest type  of  "  Tamburlaine."  In  "  Locrine,"  "  The  Battle  of 
Alcazar,"  and  "  The  True  Tragedy,"  we  have  the  ghost  appear- 
ing and  crying  "  Vindicta !  " ;  in  "  Alphonsus  of  Arragon,"  this 
ghostly  element  is  furnished  in  a  measure,  by  the  enchantments 
of  Medea,  and  by  the  misleading  incitement  of  Mahomet  of  the 
Brazen  Head.  The  soliloquy  is  present  in  "  Selimus,"  "  Loc- 
>rine,"  "  Alphonsus  of  Arragon,"  and  "  The  Battle  of  Alcazar." 
This  element  is  almost  lacking  in  the  epical  chronicles,  where 
the  solitary  speaker  is  not  common,  and  long  speeches  are,  for 
the  most  part,  addresses  to  followers. 

We  have  now  examined  the  histories  and  tragedies  pre- 
ceding and  contemporary  with  "  Richard  the  Third,"  the  sub- 
ject of  our  investigation.  It  remains  to  show  in  how  far 
"  Richard  the  Third  "  is  a  typical  play  of  the  chronicle  type 
and  in  how  far  it  has  been  modified  by  the  influence  of  Mar- 
lowe and  Kyd.  The  situations  and  characteristics  that  mark 
it  as  a  chronicle  play  are  such  as  the  following:  (i)  The 
battle  at  the  end  with  the  inevitable  single  encounter.81  (2) 
The  prominence  given  to  the  fulfilment  of  prophecies,  as  in 
the  case  of  Clarence  and  the  letter  G,82  of  Richmond's  foretold 
succession,83  of  the  Irish  bard's  warning  of  Richard  against 
Richmond,84  or  of  Margaret's  maledictions85  and  Bucking- 
ham's ill-kept  oaths,86  or  Richard's  grotesque  trickery  of  Hast- 
ings87 and  Clarence.88  (3)  The  wooing  of  an  enemy,  intro- 
duced twice,  in  the  brilliant  Anne89  and  Elizabeth90  scenes. 
(4)  The  typical  character  of  the  wailing  queen  in  its  highest 
perfection  in  Elizabeth,  Anne,  and  Margaret,  of  the  popular 

81  Act  V,  Scenes  4  and  5. 

82  Act  I,  Scene  i.      Cf.  page  15,  note  40. 
88  Act  IV,  Scene  2. 

84  Ditto. 

86  Act  I,  Scene  3. 

88  Act  II,  Scene  i  and  Act  V,  Scene  i. 

87  Act  III,  Scene  4. 

88  Act  I,  Scenes  i  and  4. 

88  Act  I,  Scene  2.      Cf.  page  16,  note  44. 
90  Act  IV,  Scene  4. 


22 

hero  in  Richmond,  and  of  the  loyal  statesman  in  Hastings.91 
(5)  The  repetition  of  favorite  "effects,"  such  as  the 
funeral  procession  of  Henry  the  Sixth,92  the  "  large  "  scenes 
in  the  council,93  with  the  mayor  and  citizens  in  Baynard 
Castle,94  or  the  leaders  haranguing  their  troops,95  the  throne 
scene  with  Richard  in  state,  crowned,98  the  company  of  wail- 
ing women,97  the  marching  of  soldiers  across  the  stage,98  the 
excursion,  the  frantic  entrance  of  Richard  calling  for  a  horse, 
the  encounter  and  death  of  Richard,  and  the  crowning  of 
Richmond  on  the  battle-field.99  (6)  The  epic  qualities  of 
structure,  exemplified  in  the  general  aim  of  presenting  the  life 
and  death  of  the  hero,  and  in  the  retention  of  such  episodes 
from  the  source  as  the  resolve  by  the  queen  to  take  sanctu- 
ary,100 Rivers,  Grey  and  Vaughan  on  the  way  to  death,101  the 
scrivener  with  the  indictment  of  Hastings,102  and  Buckingham 
led  to  execution.103 

As  has  been  said,  this  play  shows  the  dominating  influence 
of  Marlowe.  As  in  the  plays  of  that  author,  so  in  "  Richard 
the  Third,"  the  hero  is  of  constant  and  over-weening  impor- 
tance. The  interest  is  held  and  the  action  centers  about  his 
figure  as  it  did  not  in  such  plays  as  "  The  Famous  Victories," 
"The  Troublesome  Raigne,"  or  "Edward  the  First."  In 
variance  from  the  epic  type,  the  whole  play  tends  to  become 
a  series  of  episodes  connected  by  the  shortest  possible  narra- 
tive scenes.  As  in  Marlowe  again,  the  scenes  of  humorous 
nature  are  of  the  warp  and  woof  of  the  play,  and  are  of 

91  Cf.  page  21,  VI. 

92  Act  I,  Scene  2.      Cf.  page  16,  VII,  and  note  47. 
"Act  III,  Scene  4.      Cf.  page  17,  note  53. 

94  Act  III,  Scene  7. 

95  Act  V,  Scene  3.      Cf.  page  15,  I. 

98  Act  IV,  Scene  2.      Cf.  page  17,  note  48. 

97  Act  IV,  Scenes  i  and  4.      Cf.  page  16,  VI. 

98  Act  IV,  Scene  4.      Cf.  page   17,  note  54. 

"Act  V,  Scenes  4  and  5.      Cf.  page  17,  notes  48  and  54. 

100  Act  II,  Scene  4. 

101  Act  III,  Scene  3. 

102  Act  III,  Scene  6. 

108 Act  V,  Scene  i.      Cf.  pages  15  and  17,  VIII. 


23 

the  same  ironical  and  grotesque  character.  The  quarrel  of 
Richard  and  Margaret,104  the  wooing  of  Anne,105  the  scene 
with  Elizabeth,106  and  the  satirical  over-reaching  of  the  Mayor 
and  Citizens,107  are  treated  with  Marlowean  "  coarseness  of 
stroke,"  and  Richard's  mis-shapen  body  probably  gave  oppor- 
tunity for  comic  touches  of  the  same  nature.  Extravagance 
and  elaboration  of  effective  situations,  as  in  Marlowe's  work, 
are  also  seen  in  the  two  wooing  scenes,  in  the  murder  of 
Clarence,  with  its  repetition  in  Tyrrel's  account  of  the  death 
of  the  two  princes,  and  in  the  last  scene  on  the  battle-field. 
Again  this  play  represents  the  culmination  of  the  development 
of  the  villain-hero  accomplishing  his  ends  by  intrigue  and 
murder,  characteristic  of  the  "  Jew  of  Malta." 

This  last  characteristic  is,  at  the  same  time,  one  of  the 
marks  of  the  influence  of  Kyd  upon  the  play,  exerted  directly, 
or  it  may  be  indirectly,  through  Marlowe.  The  particular 
influence  of  Kyd,  however,  is  seen  in  the  emphasis  upon  the 
revenge  motive,  in  this  case  of  a  double  nature,  with  Richard 
at  first  the  principal  agent  and  later  its  object,108  and  in  the 
introduction  of  the  ghosts  to  appal  the  wrong-doer  and  to 
urge  on  the  avenger.  The  soliloquy,  characteristic  of  both 
Kyd  and  Marlowe,  is  frequent ;  the  play  opens  with  a  long  one, 
and,  from  time  to  time,  Richard  gives  account  of  himself  in 
passages  of  varying  length.109  These  seem  to  mark  the  steps 
in  the  progress  of  the  play  in  much  the  same  manner  as  the 
congratulatory  scenes  of  the  epical  plays. 

"  Richard  the  Third  "  then,  when  examined  in  its  situations 
and  motives,  is  found  to  display  within  itself  the  marks  of  the 
three  most  potent  influences  upon  the  early  Elizabethan  drama, 
the  chronicle,  the  play  of  Marlowe,  and  the  Kydian  tragedy. 
There  are  discoverable  medieval  elements  also,  still  to  be  noted 

104  Act  I,  Scene  3- 

105  Act  I,  Scene  2. 

106  Act  IV,  Scene  4. 
101  Act  III,  Scene  7. 

108  This  double  revenge  is  found  also  in  Locrine. 

109  Act  I,   Scene  i,  Act  III,   Scene  5,  Act  IV,   Scenes  2  and  3,  Act  V, 
Scene  3. 


24 

when  the  play  is  considered  in  greater  detail.  The  most  im- 
portant characteristic  in  fixing  its  type  is  the  prominence  given 
to  the  protagonist,  which  results  in  the  transference  of  the 
interest  to  character,  rather  than  centering  in  the  story,  a  fact 
which  may  explain  its  persistence  on  the  stage  over  all  the 
other  chronicle  plays  of  this  period.  Its  greater  interest  his- 
trionically by  virtue  of  this  we  shall  attempt  to  make  plain 
in  the  next  chapter. 


II 

RICHARD  THE  THIRD  ON  THE  ELIZABETHAN  STAGE 

Theories  of  Elizabethan  staging — Documentary  evidence — Method  here 
pursued — Examination  of  the  play  from  the  point  of  view  of  its  presenta- 
tion— The  prologue — Stage  oratory — The  funeral  procession — The  wooing 
— Comic  touches — The  murder  scene — The  use  of  the  lament — Scene  of 
the  two  camps — The  ghost  on  the  stage — The  battle  scene,  its  history  and 
importance — Conclusion. 

Although  "  Richard  the  Third  "  was  indisputably  one  of  the 
most  popular  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  we  have  no  record  of  its 
performance  during  the  time  of  Elizabeth  or  James.  There  is 
no  entry  in  Henslowe's  diary,  or  in  the  Revels  Accounts  per- 
taining, so  far  as  we  know,  to  this  play,  although  Fleay  con- 
jectures a  performance  at  Court  during  the  Christmas  festivi- 
ties of  I594.1  The  only  known,  definite  account  of  a  per- 
formance before  the  closing  of  the  theaters  is  found  in  the 
Office  Book  of  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  under  date  of  November 
1 6,  1633,  and  already  alluded  to  in  Chapter  I.  Any  further 
information  must  come  indirectly  from  such  references  as  the 
entry  in  Manningham's  Diary,  which  refers  to  a  performance 
on  March  31,  i6oi,2  or  from  such  interpretation  as  may  be 
given  to  the  phrase  "  lately  acted,"  on  the  successive  quartos. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  in  Chapter  I  that  this  play  was  prob- 
ably first  given  at  The  Theatre  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
Company,  and  it  has  been  further  seen,  in  the  allusions  given, 
that  Burbage  was  the  Elizabethan  Richard.  But  under  what 
conditions  Burbage  played  Richard  the  Third  at  The  Theatre 

1  Life   of  Shakespeare,  page    14.      Also   History   of   the  London   Stage, 
page  121. 

2  See   Chapter  I,  page  3.      A  hint  of  a  Richard  in  the  mid-seventeenth 
century  is  given  by  the  Prologue  to  Chapman's  Bussy  D'Ambois.      One  of 
the  actors,  supposed  to  be  Tom  Bond,  is  recommended  because 

As  Richard  he  was  liked. 

This  prologue  was  prefixed  to  the  edition  of  1641. 

25 


26 

in  the  season  of  1593-4  must,  except  in  their  general  charac- 
ter, be  a  matter  of  conjecture,  and  even  the  general  conditions, 
it  has  been  found,  are  difficult  to  establish. 

The  question  of  Elizabethan  staging  is  a  large  one,  and  the 
various  theories  advanced  need  not  be  reproduced  here.  The 
writers  upon  the  subject,  however,  whether  following  Kilian,3 
Brandl,4  and  Brodmeier5  in  their  theory  of  "  alternation,"  or 
upholding  the  idea  of  the  "  plastic,"  "  symbolic,"  or  "  incon- 
gruous "  stage  as  set  forth  by  Mantzius,6  Reynolds,7  or  Cor- 
bin,8  or  insisting  upon  the  bare  stage  as  conceived  by  Mr. 
Greet  and  his  co-workers,  agree  upon  certain  leading  points.9 
It  is  generally  accepted  that  the  stage  was  a  large,  open  plat- 
form, with  a  tiring-room  at  the  back,  and  a  balcony  above. 
The  division  of  the  stage  into  an  outer  and  inner  part  is  a  moot 
point,  as  is  also  the  question  of  the  presence  of  curtains.  Or, 
conceding  that  the  stage  was  curtained,  the  position  of  these 
hangings  is  debated.  Whether  there  were  two  or  three  doors 
to  the  stage,  and  the  position  of  these,  it  is  from  our  present 
data  impossible  to  determine.10  It  must  be  remembered, 
moreover,  that  the  establishment  of  the  use  and  position  of 
these  in  one  theatre  would  by  no  means  show  their  existence 
in  others. 

*Jahrbuch  der  Shakespeare  Gesellschaft,  Vols.  XXVIII  and  XXXVI. 

4  Introduction  to  the  Schlegel-Tieck  Shakespeare. 

8  Die  Shakespeare  Biihne  nach  den  alten  Buhnenanweisungen.  Weimer, 
1904. 

8  History  of  Theatric  Art,  Vol.  II,  page  338. 

1  Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging.  Modern  Philology,  April  and 
June,  1905. 

8  Shakespeare  and  the  Plastic  Stage.      Atlantic  Monthly,  March,   1906. 

9  A  review  of  several  recent  theories  of  the  Elizabethan  stage  is  given 
by  Mr.  William  Archer  in  The  Quarterly  Review  for  April,  1908. 

10  For   a   discussion   of   these   points,   see   W.   J.    Lawrence,   Some   Char- 
acteristics of  the  Elizabethan  Stuart  Stage.      Englische  Studien,   Vol.   32 
(1902).     See   also   G.   P.   Baker,   The  Development   of  Shakespeare  as  a 
Dramatist,  New  York,  1907.     Chapter  II  is  on  The  Stage  of  Shakespeare. 
The  most  recent  and  a  very  valuable  treatment  of  the  question  may  be 
found  in  a  pamphlet  by  Mr.  V.  E.  Albright,  A  Typical  Shakesperian  Stage: 
The  Outer-Inner  Stage,  New  York,  1908.    Mr.  Albright's  complete  discussion 
is  about  to  appear  in  Columbia  University  Studies  in  English. 


27 

An  idea  of  some  of  the  properties  used  may  be  gathered 
from  Henslowe's  Diary,  The  Revels  Accounts,  and  from  stage 
directions,  but  it  is  quite  impossible  to  determine  definitely 
how  "  a  mose  bancke,"  "  a  rocke,"  the  "  baye  tree,"  or  the 
"  tree  of  gowlden  apelles  "  was  used,  or  what  became  of  "  the 
sittie  of  Rome,"  or  the  "  tome  of  Dido,"  or  "  Hell  mought " 
after  their  part  in  the  play  was  over.  Henslowe's  inventories 
of  the  wardrobes  of  the  companies  under  his  management  give 
only  a  general  notion  of  the  kind  of  costume  used.  Thus  we 
know  that  the  Admiral's  Men  had  for  Tamburlaine  a  "  cote 
with  coper  lace,"  "  breches  of  crymson  vellvet,"  and  a  "  bry- 
dell,"  that  Henry  the  Fifth  had  a  "  satten  dublet,  layd  with 
gowld  lace,"  and  a  "  velvet  gowne,"  but  little  can  be  gathered 
as  to  their  style,  whether  attempting  any  great  historical  or 
national  distinction.  From  their  description  and  the  price 
paid  for  them,  they  appear  to  have  been  elaborate  and  rich  in 
effect.  We  read  of  a  "  read  clocke  with  read  coper  lace,"  a 
"  scarlet  clocke  with  silver  buttons,"  "  Dobes  cotte  of  cloth  of 
silver  "  and  of  a  "  womanes  gowne  of  cloth  of  gowld."  The 
plays  of  the  period  supplement  this  information  somewhat  by 
chance  references  to  dress  here  and  there.  "  Hieronimo's  old 
cloak,  ruff,  and  hat "  are  mentioned  when  the  actors  want  a 
Spanish  suit  in  "  The  Alchemist "  j11  an  elaborate  description 
of  the  dress  of  Richard  the  Second's  courtiers  is  given  in 
"  Woodstock,"12  emphasizing  the  contrast  to  Gloucester's 
clothes  of  frieze ;  Edward  the  First  appears  in  a  "  glass 
suit "  ;13  Tamburlaine's  dress  is  loaded  with  the  treasure  of 
the  Persians,  and  Edward  the  Second's  favorite,  Gaveston, 

11  Act  IV,  Scene  4. 

"They  sit  in  counsell  to  devise  strange  fashions 
And  suite  themselves  in  wyld  and  anticke  habitts, 
Such  as  this  kingdome  never  yett  beheld : 
Frenche  hose,  Italian  cloakes,  and  Spanish  hatts, 
Polonian  shoes,  with  pickes  a  hand  full  longe, 
Tyde  to  ther  knees  with  chaynes  of  pearle  and  gould ; 
^       Ther  plumed  topps  fly  waveing  in  the  ayre, 

A  cubit  hye  above  ther  wanton  heads.     Act  I,  Scene  3. 
"  The  famous  Chronicle  of  King  Edward  the  first,  Dyce  edition  of  Works 
of  Greene  and  Peele,  page  385. 


28 

wears  a  short  Italian  hooded  cloak, 
Larded   with  pearl,   and  in  his  Tuscan  cap, 
A  jewel  of  more  value  than  the  crown. 

These  references  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely.  Whether 
all  of  these  suggestions  in  the  text  were  carried  out  is  doubt- 
ful, but  the  general  conclusion,  so  far  as  such  data  lead  to 
one,  is  that  there  was  an  attempt  to  distinguish  nationalities 
in  dress,  but  evidently  little  feeling  for  anachronism  or  incon- 
gruity in  the  costume  any  more  than  in  the  properties. 

The  bearing  of  such  items  as  the  foregoing  has  received 
much  attention,  and  attempts  have  been  made  to  reconstruct  an 
Elizabethan  performance  from  the  data  so  gathered,  supple- 
mented by  the  descriptions  of  social  conditions,  such  as  are 
found  in  "  The  Gull's  Handbook,"  in  "  Coryat's  Crudities,"14 
or  Hentzer's  "  Travels."15  The  most  notable  of  these  attempts 
are  found  in  Mantzius'  "  History  of  Theatric  Art,"16  and  in 
Regel's  "  Uber  Englisches  Theaterwesen  zu  Shakespeare's 
Zeit."  In  the  investigation  here  attempted,  however,  I  shall 
try  to  throw  what  light  I  may  upon  the  presentation  of  "  Rich- 
ard the  Third  "  by  considering  the  stage  directions,  and  other 
internal  evidences  of  staging  in  this  play  and  in  similar  plays 
of  the  period.  In  other  words,  relying  upon  the  close  relations 
of  the  authors  and  of  the  theatres  of  the  time,  I  shall  continue 
the  comparative  method  used  in  Chapter  I.  The  result  of  such 
an  investigation  will  not,  perhaps,  be  any  such  rehabilitation  as 
those  mentioned  above,  but  will  serve  to  fix  "  Richard  the 
Third  "  in  its  place  among  the  plays  on  the  London  stage  dur- 
ing the  season  of  its  popularity. 

In  a  consideration  of  this  play  from  the  point  of  view  of 
presentation,  however,  it  must  be  reiterated,  in  trying  to  con- 
ceive the  impression  made  by  "  Richard  the  Third  "  on  the 
Elizabethan  stage,  that  it  was  not  a  new  subject,  but  one  as 
well  known  to  the  audience  as  were  the  fortunes  of  the  house  of 
Pelops  to  the  Greeks.  As  has  been  pointed  out  in  Chapter  I, 

"By  Thomas  Coryat.      1611.      London,  1776.      3  Vols. 
16  A  Journey  into  England  In  the  year  MDXCVIII.      Edited  by  Horace 
Walpole,  1757. 

18  Vol.  Ill,  pages  157-166. 


29 

there  had  been  several  plays  dealing  with  the  same  personages, 
and  presenting  many  of  the  same  situations,  such  as  "  The  true 
Tragedy  of  Richard  the  Third/'  which  was  on  the  stage  in 
1591  and  continued  on  the  stage  until  the  time  of  Charles 
the  First.17  In  view  of  the  close  relations  of  authors,  actors, 
and  theatres  at  this  time,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  Shakes- 
peare did  not  know  this  play,18  whether  "  Richard  the  Third  " 
was  a  conscious  reworking  of  the  materials  there  used  or  not. 
Any  knowledge  of  the  university  play,  "  Richardus  Tertius,"  is 
much  more  doubtful,  but  by  no  means  impossible.  From  this 
point  of  view,  therefore,  "  Richard  the  Third  "  was  a  revision 
in  somewhat  the  same  sense  as  was  "  Lear  "  and  a  study  of  its 
presentation  must  take  these  older  plays  into  account. 

Act  I,  Scene  I.19 — The  play  opens  with  a  scene  which  per- 
forms the  function  of  a  prologue,  Clarence  and  Hastings  serv- 
ing to  illustrate  the  situation  described  by  Richard  in  his 
soliloquy,  in  much  the  same  manner  as,  in  "  The  Battle  of 
Alcazar,"  the  Presenter's  speech  is  interrupted  by  the  dumb 
shows.20  The  opening  soliloquy,  while  thoroughly  orthodox 
Senecan  usage,  and  an  almost  inevitable  dramatic  device,  had 
not  characterized  the  chronicle  plays  generally  before  "  Richard 
the  Third."  In  plays  of  the  type  of  "  The  Contention,"  "  The 
Famous  Victories,"  and  "  Edward  the  First,"  the  reflective  ele- 
ment is  almost  wholly  lacking.  In  Marlowe's  plays  however, 
except  "  Tamburlaine,"  we  find  the  opening  soliloquy,  and  it 
is  used  frequently  throughout  the  play,  a  natural  result  of  the 
absorbing  interest  in  the  machinations  of  a  villain,  such  as  the 

"According  to  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare, 
pages  94-5. 

18  See  Churchill,  Richard  III  up   to  Shakespeare,  pages   396-8,  and  497. 
Present  opinion  considers  it  uncertain  whether  Shakespeare  knew  the  play, 
but  agrees  that  whether  he  knew  it  or  not,  he  was  very  slightly  dependent 
upon  it.      The  same  is  true  of  Richardus  Tertius. 

19  The  division  into  acts  and  scenes  follows  the  Cambridge  edition.      The 
Quartos  are  not  divided  and  in  the  Folio  the  division  is  incomplete. 

20  The   opening  soliloquy   is   closely   related   to   the   expository   matter   at 
the  beginning  of  the  morality  plays,  and  in  the  folk  drama,  like  the  St. 
George  plays. 

See  Manly,  Specimens  of  the  Pre-Shakesperean  Drama,  Vol.  I,  page  289. 


30 

Jew,  or  the  fluctuations  of  a  tumultuous  mind,  as  in  "  Faustus." 
It  is  probably  due  to  this  influence,  reinforced  by  the  example 
of  the  tragedy  of  Kyd,  that  Richard  the  Third  indulges  in  his 
self-reporting  and  self -analytic  soliloquies  at  every  turn. 
How  these  were  spoken  we  can  gather  only  from  chance  refer- 
ences in  the  plays,  the  locus  classicus  being  the  advice  to  the 
players  in  "  Hamlet."21  Shakespeare  has  there  furnished  us 
with  a  document  which  gives  us  the  popular  stage  oratory,  and 
the  reforms  for  which  he  worked.  This  speech,  written  about 
1602,  describes  the  methods  which  probably  prevailed  during 
the  earlier  performances  of  "  Richard  the  Third."  The  popu- 
lar style  of  oratory  Shakespeare  had  ridiculed  in  "  Midsummer 
Night's  Dream  "  in  Bottom's  histrionic  aspirations  to  reproduce 
"  Ercles'  vein  "  or  "  a  part  to  tear  a  cat  in,  to  make  all  split."22 
This  expression,  showing  the  popular  ideal  of  tragic  utterance, 
is  found  also  in  "  Histriomastix,"  where  an  actor  is  referred 
to  as  liking  to  "  rend  and  tear  the  cat  upon  a  stage."23  In 
Greene's  "  Groatsworth  of  Wit "  (1592),  a  player  says:  "  The 
twelve  labors  of  Hercules.  ...  I  terribly  thundered  upon  the 
stage,"  referring  to  a  stock  character  much  like  the  old  part  of 
Herod,24  giving  full  scope  for  rant  and  always  associated  with 
it.  In  addition  to  these  direct  references,  it  may  be  seen  that 
the  Tamburlaine  type  of  hero  encouraged,  with  his  "  high 
astounding  terms,"  the  indulgence  in  this  bombastic  style  of 
speaking.  Shakespeare's  fling  at  the  "  deep  tragedian  "25  in 
"  Richard  the  Third  "  suggests  a  lack  of  sympathy  thus  early 
with  their  extravagance,  and  the  ideal  of  a  more  intelligent  and 
thoughtful  manner  which  foreshadowed  his  later  explicit  defini- 

11  Act  III,  Scene  2. 

22  Act  I,  Scene  2.     See  also,  Jonson's  Bartholomew  Fair,  Act  V,  Scene  5. 
"  I  like  'em  (».  e.,  the  puppets)  for  that ;  they  offer  not  to  fleer,  nor  jeer, 
nor  break  jests,  as  the  great  players  do." 
"Act  V,  line  241. 

24  The  stage  directions  in  the  Pageant  of  the  Shearmen  and  Taylors  reads, 
"  Here  Erode  ragis  in  the  pagond  and  in  the  strete  also." 
Erode.     I   stampe !    I   stare !    I   loke   all  abowtt ! 

Might  I  them  take,  I  schuld  them  bren  at  a  glede ! 
I  rent !    I  rawe !    and  now  run  I  wode ! 
"Act  III,  Scene  5. 


31 

tion  in  "  Hamlet."  These  soliloquies,  therefore,  we  must  be- 
lieve, in  the  Richard  of  Burbage,  were  given,  under  the  super- 
vision of  Shakespeare's  own  tutelage,  with  greater  temperance 
and  more  "  gently."  In  this  more  than  in  any  chronicle 
play  which  preceded,  the  emphasis  was  placed  upon  the  indi- 
vidual speeches  rather  than  upon  the  action  or  upon  such 
oratorical  displays  as  were  necessitated  by  the  character  of 
Edward  the  First,  Edward  the  Third,  or  Tamburlaine,  and 
the  manner  of  giving  these  lines  had,  for  that  reason,  a  real 
significance  in  the  development  of  the  play. 

Scene  2. — The  second  scene  opens  with  a  funeral  procession 
which  strangely  serves  .as  the  setting  for  the  wooing.  The 
funeral  scene  was  a  favorite  one  on  the  Elizabethan  stage,  as 
were  all  processional  scenes,  which  gave  opportunity  for  dis- 
play, of  which  the  audience  was  fond,  and  which  gratified  in 
some  measure  the  popular  delight  in  realistic  staging.  There 
are  usually  few  directions  for  the  funeral  processions, 
probably  because  they  had  become  highly  conventionalized. 
In  some  cases  a  few  suggestions  are  given  in  addition 
to  the  "  Enter  funeral,"  as  in  "  The  First  Part  of  Hieronimo," 
Act  III,  Scene  3,  "  Enter  two,  draging  of  ensigns ;  then 
funerall  of  Andrea,"  and  in  "  The  Massacre  at  Paris," 
"  They  march  out,  with  the  body  of  the  King  lying  on  four 
men's  shoulders,  with  a  dead  march,  dragging  weapons  on  the 
ground."26  In  "Hamlet"  the  directions  call  for  a  "dead 
march "  and  a  "  peal  of  ordinance "  ;27  in  "  Edward  the 
Second  "  they  bring  in  the  hearse  and  the  "  funeral  robes."28 
The  funeral  of  Zenocrate  moves  along  in  the  light  of  a  town 
burning  in  her  honor,  and  a  pillar,  a  "  streamer,"  a  tablet,  and 
a  picture  of  her  are  carried  in  the  procession.29  Yet,  with 
the  possibility  of  making  much  of  a  popular  subject,  the  stage 
directions  in  this  scene30  and  the  later  lines  suggest  that  the 

26  Act  III. 

"Act  V,  Scene  2. 
28  Act  V,  Scene  6. 

28  Tamburlaine,  Part  II,  Act  III,  Scene  2. 

80 "  Enter  the  corps  of  King  Henry  the  Sixth,  Gentlemen  with  halberds 
to  guard  it.  Lady  Anne  being  the  mourner." 


^pN 

I  -  _  / 


32 

sources  were  closely  followed  by  Shakespeare,  and  that  the 
train  here  numbered  only  a  few.  This  is  interesting,  not  so 
much  because  it  would  seem  to  illustrate  his  fidelity  to  the 
source,  for  he  flagrantly  disregards  this  in  introducing  the  woo- 
ing of  Anne,  but  because  we  find  the  figure  of  Richard  made 
the  dominant  interest  in  a  scene  usually  given  over  to  purely 
decorative  purposes. 

With  such  a  setting,  and  immediately  succeeding  a  scene  of 
wailing,  the  wooing  of  Anne  with  its  possibility  of  comic 
"  business,"  and  in  the  presence  of  the  murdered  Henry  whose 
wounds,  at  the  approach  of  Richard, 

Open  their  congealed  mouths  and  bleed  afresh, 

shows  a  grotesqueness  typical  of  the  Elizabethan  drama.  How 
much  "  business  "  was  introduced  cannot  be  determined,  but  on 
a  stage  where  improvisation  was  the  rule,  it  can  hardly 
be  thought  that  such  an  opportunity  would  be  overlooked 
or  lost.31  Besides,  Shakespeare  intensifies  this  situation  by 
representing  the  wrongs  of  Anne  as  coming  more  directly 
and  personally  to  her  from  her  wooer  than  had  been 
the  case  in  the  similar  scenes  in  "  Tamburlaine  "32  and  "  The 
Famous  Victories,"  and  at  the  same  time  in  making  Richard, 
the  wooer,  almost  revolting  in  his  appearance.38  The  hideous- 
ness  of  Richard  is  constantly  flung  in  his  teeth  in  an  entirely 
brutal  manner,  and  spoken  of  in  his  soliloquies  in  the  frank, 
self-reporting  style  of  the  tragedy  villain.  In  picturing 
Richard  thus,  Shakespeare  has  only  followed  the  chronicles 
from  More  down,  who  represent  Richard  as  "  croke  backed," 
"  hard  favored,"  and  with  "  ill- featured  limbs,"  and  an  arm 

11  Comic  touches  are  suggested  not  only  in  the  situation  of  a  skilful  dis- 
sembler, but  also  in  the  "  keen  encounter  of  our  wits,"  as  Richard  himself 
describes  it.  This  would  delight  an  audience  that  enjoyed  word -juggling. 
In  addition,  to  overreach  a  woman  has  ever  been  considered  comic,  giving 
delight  of  the  same  kind  as  that  felt  in  making  game  of  anything  weaker. 
n  Part  I,  Act  I,  Scene  2. 

u  Richard   as  "  a  jolly  thriving  wooer "  presented  a  ludicrous   anomaly. 
He  appreciates  this  when  he  says  sardonically : 

I  do  mistake  my  person  all  this  while : 
Upon  my  life,  she  finds,  although  I  cannot, 
Myself  to  be  a  marvellous  proper  man. 


33 

"  werish,  withered,  and  small."  In  "  The  True  Tragedy  "  he 
is  described  as 

A  man  ill  shaped,  crooked  backed,  lame  armed,  withall.3* 

From  the  allusions  to  his  deformity,  it  is  seen  that  Shakespeare 
utilized  these  traditions  to  the  utmost.  Thus  Richard  speaks 
of  himself  as 

Deformed,  unfinished,     .     .     . 
scarce   half   made   up, 
And  that  so  lamely  and  unfashionable 
That  dogs  bark  at  me   as  I  halt  by  them.35 

Anne  calls  him  a  "  lump  of  foul  deformity,"  "  hedgehog  "  and 
"  toad  "  while  Margaret  adds  the  epithets  of  "  elvish  mark'd," 
"  bunch-back' d  toad,"  and  "  bottled  spider."36  Such  words  as 
these  suggest  an  emphasis  on  physical  unsightliness  of  an  ex- 
treme type.  But  this,  far  from  being  revolting,  was,  we  must 
believe,  to  an  audience  that  delighted  in  the  antics  of  dwarfs 
and  idiots  and  had  not  outgrown  the  love  for  harlequinade, 
highly  ludicrous. 

Scene  3. — The  figure  of  Margaret  dominates  this  scene,  in 
her  curses  and  exultation  combining  the  ferocity  of  a  Fury  and 
the  malignant  forebodings  of  a  witch.37  The  impressiveness 
of  the  scene  depended  less  upon  the  dramatic  situation  than 
upon  the  current  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  such  curses,  and  in  this 
respect  is  wholly  of  its  time.  Its  effect  upon  the  audience  was 
undoubtedly  expressed  in  Hasting's  words  after  Margaret's 
parting  execration, 

My  hair  doth  stand  on  end  to  hear  her  curses. 

The  scene  closes  with  Richard's  compact  with  the  murderers  in 
preparation  for  the  next  scene. 

Scene  4. — The  act  closes  with  Clarence's  murder,  which 
carries  on  and  intensifies  the  somberness  of  the  preceding 

34  Shakespeare  Society  Publications,  Vol.  21,  page  3. 

35  Act  I,  Scene  i. 

36  Act  I,  Scene  3. 

37  Professor  A.   H.  Thorndike  in  Tragedy,  page   119,  shows  that  Shake- 
speare "personified  Nemesis  in  Margaret,  and  gave  her  the  various  func- 
tions of  a  supervising  ghost  and  of  a  chorus — curses,  laments,  and  exulta- 
tions." 

4 


34 

scenes.  The  presentation  of  the  murder  scene  in  the  drama 
shows  signs  of  development  as  do  other  situations  constantly 
used.  In  the  English  Senecan  plays,  following  the  Greek 
usage,  the  murder  is  usually  behind  the  scenes,  and  in  the  Sene- 
can imitations,  "  Tancred  and  Gismunda,"  and  "  Gorboduc," 
this  is  the  case.  In  the  medieval  English  drama,  where  tradi- 
tional decencies  had  no  sway,  murders  are  frequently  on  the 
stage,  and  seem  to  have  elicited  considerable  care  to  heighten 
their  effectiveness.  This  is  seen  in  the  morality  plays,  and  in 
such  a  late  development  of  the  morality  as  "  Cambyses."  In 
the  vogue  of  the  "  Spanish  Tragedy  "  and  the  drama  of  blood, 
no  scene  of  this  sort  was  too  revolting  to  be  represented  on  the 
stage.  This  reached  its  height  in  such  a  play  as  "  Titus  An- 
dronicus."  In  all  of  these  the  murderer  is  ruthless  to  the  last 
extreme,  the  murder  takes  place  quickly,  with  great  bloodiness, 
and  the  situation,  with  utter  indifference  to  the  consideration  of 
dramatic  force,  is  repeated  again  and  again.  On  the  other 
hand,  after  Marlowe's  "  Edward  the  Second/'38  the  murder 
scene  was  made  more  of  and  used  with  great  effectiveness. 
The  scene  in  Marlowe's  play  is  one  of  the  greatest  in  English 
drama,  and  it  is  small  wonder  that  it  found  instant  imitation 
in  the  succeeding  plays  of  "Henry  the  Sixth"  Part  II,39 
"Woodstock,"  and  "Richard  the  Third,"  all  three  being 
probably  written  within  three  years  after  the  appearance  of 
"  Edward  the  Second."  In  these  scenes  the  preliminary  ar- 
rangements for  the  murder,  the  forebodings  and  apprehensions 
of  the  one  about  to  die,  the  discussion  between  the  murderers 
and  their  victim,  his  attempt  to  move  the  hard-visaged  men, 
and  the  repentance  of  the  murderers  after  the  deed,  contributed 
elements  of  suspense,  pity,  and  humanity  which  made  of  them 
something  entirely  new.  For  the  presentation  of  the  scenes, 
the  stage  directions  are,  as  a  rule,  explicit.  Thus  in  "  Cam- 
byses "  we  have  an  interesting  indication  of  how  these  things 
were  managed  in  the  early  dramas,  in  the  scene  where  Lord 

38  Act  V,  Scene  5.      The  death  of  Guise  in  The  Massacre  at  Paris,  Act 
III,  Scene  2,  is  similar. 
88  The  murder  of  Gloucester,  Act  III,  Scene  2. 


35 

Smirdis  is  killed.  Cruelty  and  Murder  enter  "  with  bloody 
hands,"  they  seize  him,  "  strike  him  in  divers  places,"  and  then 
"  a  little  bladder  of  vinegar  "  is  "  prickt."  In  the  later  plays 
no  mention  is  made  of  such  devices,  but  in  the  conferences  of 
the  murderers  over  the  methods  to  be  employed,  quite  as 
realistic  effects  are  suggested.  So  we  have  the  gruesome  pre- 
paration of  the  table  and  the  featherbed  for  Edward  the 
Second,  the  towell  for  Woodstock,  and  the  direction  to  the 
Second  Murderer  at  the  death  of  Clarence  to  "  Take  him  over 
the  costard  with  the  hilts  of  thy  sword."  The  disposition  of 
the  body  after  the  murder  is  prepared  for,  probably  more  for 
the  purpose  of  getting  it  off  the  stage  than  from  any  regard 
for  historical  accuracy. 

In  "  Richard  the  Third,"  therefore,  we  have  a  scene  closely 
resembling  others  on  the  stage  at  the  time.  It  is  the  longest 
of  these  imitations  of  "  Edward  the  Second,"  this  being  due  in 
large  part  to  the  strange  introduction  of  the  grotesquely  humor- 
ous conversation  of  the  murderers  before  the  deed,  a  touch 
entirely  lacking  in  any  of  the  similar  scenes  in  other  plays.  It 
is  hard  for  us  to  realize  the  effect  of  this  humor,  but  we  find 
from  their  popularity  that  such  violent  contrasts  were  in 
complete  harmony  with  the  temper  of  the  sixteenth  century 
audience. 

Looking  at  these  scenes  as  they  are  grouped  in  Act  I,  we 
find  that  they  exhibit  in  succession  those  typical  of  Elizabethan 
taste.  Considered  from  the  aspect  of  stage  effect,  they  pres- 
ented to  the  audience  a  series  of  situations  already  familiar  in 
other  plays  of  the  period,  but  here  elaborated  beyond  anything 
they  had  yet  seen.  The  effect  of  the  whole  act  is  extravagant, 
these  typical  scenes  being  heightened,  and  going  beyond  their 
predecessors.  In  contrast  to  this  extravagance  in  the  concep- 
tion, the  setting  of  the  act  seems  to  have  been  very  simple. 
I  see  no  suggestion  of  any  furniture  other  than  a  couch  for  the 
sleeping  Clarence,  and  no  sure  indication  of  an  inner  stage, 
even  in  a  case  which  would  call  it  into  use  if  one  were  available. 
Thus  in  the  murder  scene,  where  the  conversation  which  takes 
place  between  Brakenbury  and  the  murderers  would  presum- 


ably  be  in  another  room,  there  is  nothing  in  the  text  to  indicate 
that  they  are  not  in  the  room  with  Clarence.40 

Act  II,  Scene  i. — The  effect  of  the  opening  lines  with  King 
Edward  attempting  to  reconcile  his  nobles,  is  to  relieve  a  little 
the  tension  of  the  preceding,  but  with  the  entrance  of  Richard, 
the  irony  of  it  all  becomes  apparent,  and  the  scene  ends  in 
mourning.  In  regard  to  the  staging,  this  would  seem  to  indicate 
the  lack,  at  least  in  The  Theatre,  of  any  arrangement  for  "  dis- 
covered "  scenes,  for  the  sick  king  was  probably  brought  in 
"  carried  in  a  chair  "  like  Brutus  in  "  Locrine,"41  or  Abdilmelec 
in  "  The  Battle  of  Alcazar,"42  and  is  taken  off  at  the  end  of  the 
scene. 

Scene  2. — This  is  a  thoroughly  typical  scene  of  lamenta- 
tion, of  which  the  drama  offers  many  examples.  The  dramatic 
effectiveness  of  the  lament  had  always  been  recognized,  but  it 
had  never  received  such  abundant  illustration  as  in  "  Richard 
the  Third."  In  this  play  there  are  no  less  than  four  scenes 
in  which  the  lament  is  the  principal  motive;  namely,  Act  III, 
Scene  2,  the  Queen  and  the  Duchess  of  York  mourning  for 
Edward  and  Clarence,  Act  II,  Scene  4,  the  Queen  mourning 
for  Grey  and  Rivers,  Act  IV,  Scene  i,  the  Queen,  the  Duchess 
of  York  and  Anne  before  the  Tower,  and  Act  IV,  Scene  4, 
the  Duchess  of  York,  Margaret,  and  the  Queen  lamenting  to- 
gether. There  are  also  seven  scenes  in  which  the  lament  plays 
a  fairly  important  part.43 

Such  lyric  passages  have  figured  largely  from  the  earliest 
attempts  to  represent  a  story  dramatically.  In  the  liturgy  of 
the  medieval  Church  one  of  the  most  impressive  interpolations 
for  special  celebrations  was  the  Easter  Officium  Sepulchri, 
which  represented  the  three  Marys  on  their  way  to  the  Tomb 
and  exclaiming  in  turn : 

40  Brackenbury's  speech, 

Here  are  the  keys,  there  sits  the  duke  asleep, 

does  not  seem  to  indicate  that  Clarence  is  in  another  room  when  this  is 
taken  in  connection  with  the  duke's  last  speech. 

41  Act  I,  Scene  i. 
43  Act  V. 

"Anne,  I,  2.  Margaret,  I,  3.  King  Edward,  II,  i.  Rivers  and  Grey,  III, 
3.  Hastings,  III,  4.  Tyrrel,  IV,  3.  Buckingham,  V,  i. 


37 

Heu !     plus   pastor    occiditur, 
Quern  nulla  culpa  infecit: 

O  mors  lugenda ! 
Heu !  nequam  gens  ludaica, 
Quam  dira  frendet  uesania, 

Plebs  execranda ! 
Heu  !    uerus  doctor  obijt, 
Qui  uitam  functis  contulit : 

O  res  plangenda ! 

Again  in  the  religious  cycles  the  mourning  women  have  an 
important  part,  as  in  the  Chester  play  of  the  Crucifixion,44  or 
the  York  play  of  the  Resurrection,  where  the  Marys  lament 
thus: 

Alias !    to  dede  I  wolde  be  dight, 

So  woo  in  worlde  was  never  wight ; 

Mi  sorowe  is  all  for  that  sight 

That  I  gune  see, 
Howe   Criste,   my   maister,   moste   of  myght, 

Is  dede  fro  me. 

Later  in  the  morality  of  "  King  Johan,"  one  of  the  characters 
is  Ynglond,  a  widow,  who  bemoans  the  evils  of  the  day.  In 
"  Cambyses,"  the  Mother  mourns  thus  for  her  child : 

Alas,  alas  !    I  doo  heare  tell  the  king  hath  kild  my  sonne ! 

If  it  be  so,  wo  worth  the  deed  that  ever  it  was  doone ! 

.     .     .     O  wel-away,  that  I  should  see  this  houre  ! 

Thy  mother  yet  wil  kisse  thy   lips,   silk-soft  and  pleasant  white, 

With  wringing  hands  lamenting  for  to  see  thee  in  this  plight ! 

The  introduction  of  such  a  scene  is  especially  interesting, 
because  of  its  entirely  ornamental  character,  playing  no  part 
in  the  development  of  the  story. 

With  the  imitation  of  Senecan  plays,  a  new  motive  charac- 
terizes such  scenes,  and  the  elegiac  note  is  combined  with  the 
reflective  or  imprecatory  lament.  Taking  one  of  the  earliest 
extant  Senecan  imitations,  "  Gorboduc,"  we  find  this  illus- 
trated in  the  mourning  of  the  Queen,  where  she  says: 

O  my  beloued  sonne,  O  my  swete  childe, 
My  deare  Ferrex,  my  ioye,  my  lyues  delyght ! 
Is  my  beloued  sonne,  is  my  sweete  childe, 
My  deare  Ferrex,  my  ioye,  my  lyues  delyght, 

"Shakespeare  Society  Publications,  Vol.  17,  pages  61,  204  and  206. 


38 

Murdered  with  cruell  death  ? 

Thou,  Porrex,  thou  shalt  dearely  bye  the  same ! 
Traitour  to  kinne  and  kinde,  to  sire  and  me, 
To  thine  owne  fleshe,  and  traitour  to  thy-selfe, 
The  gods  on  thee  in  hell  shall  wreke  their  wrath, 
And  here  in  earth  this  hand  shall  take  revenge 
On  thee,  Porrex,  thou  false  and  caitife  wight ! 

Doest  thou  not  know  that  Ferrex  mother  Hues, 
That  loued  him  more  dearly  than  her-selfe? 
And  doth  she  Hue,  and  is  not  venged  on  thee?*6 

This,  compared  with  the  mother's  lament  in  "  Cambyses," 
gives  all  the  difference  between  the  medieval  and  Senecan  idea 
of  such  a  scene.  The  violence  of  such  laments  as  that  of 
CEdipus48  or  of  Cassandra47  finds  no  place  in  the  medieval 
plays.  "  Richardus  Tertius  "  is  filled  with  lamenting  scenes, 
partly  reflective,  partly  vengeful.  The  play  opens  with  Eliza- 
beth's sad  reflections  on  the  cares  of  state.  Later,  in  sanctu- 
ary, she  gives  expression  to  her  apprehensions  and  presenti- 
ments, and  when  told  of  the  murder  of  the  princes,  she  re- 
proaches herself  for  giving  them  up  to  Richard,  and  then 
breaks  out: 

Te,  te,  precor  supplex  mater  genibus  minor, 
qui  vindicans  flammas  vibras  tonans  pater, 
et  hunc  vibrentur  tela  perjurum  tua, 
spolies  Olimpum  irate  fulminibus  tuis, 
et  impium  coeli  ruina  vindicet/8 

Richard,  in  Actio  III,  after  the  death  of  his  son,  bewails  the 
ups  and  downs  of  "  Fortuna  fallax,"  in  terms  that,  as  Mr. 
Churchill  has  pointed  out,  resemble  the  lament  of  Andromache 
in  "  The  Troas."49  These  vengeful  laments  are  found  also  in 
"The  Spanish  Tragedy,"50  in  "  Locrine,"51  in  "  Selimus,"82 

"Act  IV,  Scene  i. 

48  CEdipus,  Act  V,  Scene  3. 

47  Agamemnon,  Act  III,  Scene  2. 

48  Actio  III,  Scene  i. 

49  Op.  cit.,  page  337. 
80  Act  I,  Scene  3. 

61  Act  III,  Scene  4. 

82  Grosart  edition,  pages  242  and  249. 


39 

and  frequently  elsewhere.  In  "  The  True  Tragedy,"  the 
lament  is  almost  entirely  lacking,  except  in  the  scenes  con- 
cerned with  Jane  Shore,  the  first  of  these  being  in  familiar 
Senecan  form, 

O  Fortune,  wherefore  wert  thou  called  Fortune,  etc.63 

The  frequency  of  such  scenes  in  "  Richard  the  Third  "  has 
been  pointed  out.  These  are  of  both  the  elegiac  and  the 
vengeful  type.  In  the  "  lamentations  of  poor  Anne  "  there  is 
a  combination  of  the  two,  Elizabeth  is  purely  elegiac  in  her 
mourning,  Margaret  is  the  embodiment  of  the  spirit  of 
vengeance. 

The  outward  signs  of  woe  seem  to  have  consisted  conven- 
tionally in  weeping,  tearing  the  hair,  and  throwing  oneself  on 
the  ground.  Thus  Tamburlaine  speaks  of  Zenocrate's  "  dis- 
hevelled hair "  and  "  watery  cheeks,"  when  she  mourns  for 
her  people.54  Henry  the  Sixth  sits  on  the  mound  and  mourns 
while  the  battle  rages  without,55  Constance  seats  herself  on  the 
ground  and  says: 

Here  I  and  sorrow  sit; 
Here  is  my  throne,  bid  kings  come  bow  to  it.86 

In  Peele's  "  David  and  Bethsabe,"  the  Queen  lies  "  prostrate  " 
when  she  mourns  Absalon's  death;57  Gismunda,  in  her  grief, 
loosens  her  hair  and  casts  herself  on  the  ground,58  and  in  the 
sanctuary  scene  in  "  Richardus  Tertius,"  a  curtain  is  drawn, 
and  we  see  "  the  queen  sitting  on  ye  ground  wth  fardells  about 
her."58 

The  lamentations  often  took  an  antiphonic  form,  as  in 
"  Locrine,"  where  they  mourn  for  Albanact  thus : 

Locrine.        Not  aged  Priam,  king  of  stately  Troy, 
Grand  emperor  of  barbarous  Asia, 
When  he  beheld  his  noble-minded  sons 
Slain  traitorously  by  all  the  Myrmidons, 
Lamented  more  than  I  for  Albanact. 

03  Shakespeare  Society  Publications,  Vol.  21,  page  9. 

64  Part  I,  Act  V.  Scene  i. 

58  Henry  the  Sixth,  Part  III,  Act  II,  Scene  5,  lines  14  and  124. 

06  King  John,  Act  III,  Scene  i. 

57  Act  III,  Scene  2,  line  203. 

03  Tancred  and  Gismunda,  Act  V,  Scene  2. 

59Actio  I,  Actus  III. 


40 

Guendolen.  Not  Hecuba  the  queen  of  Ilion, 

When  she  beheld  the  town  of  Pergamus, 
Her  palace,  burnt  with  all-devouring  flames, 
Her  fifty  sons  and  daughters,  fresh  of  hue, 
Murder'd  by  wicked  Pyrrhus'  bloody  sword, 
Shed  such  sad  tears  as  I  for  Albanact. 

Camber.         'ilie  grief  of  Niobe,  fair  Amphion's  queen, 
For  her  seven  sons  magnanimous  in  field, 
For  here  seven  daughters,  fairer  than  the  fairest, 
Is  not  to  be  compar'd  with  my  laments.90 

Similar  passages  are  found  in  "  Henry  the  Sixth/'  Part  I,61 
in  the  funeral  scene  that  opens  the  play,  in  "  David  and  Beth- 
sabe,"62  and  in  "  Selimus."63  In  "  Richard  the  Third,"  this 
chanting  quality  comes  out  in  such  passages  as  the  following. 

Queen  Elizabeth.     Oh  for  my  husband,  for  my  dear  lord  Edward ! 

Children.     Oh  for  our  father,  for  our  dear  lord  Clarence ! 

Duchess.     Alas  for  both,  both  mine,  Edward  and  Clarence ! 

Q.  Eliz.     What  stay  had  I  but  Edward?  and  he's  gone. 

Chil.     What  stay  had  we  but  Clarence?  and  he's  gone. 

Duch.     What  stay  had  I  but  they?  and  they  are  gone. 

Q.   Eliz.     Was  never  widow  had  so  dear  a  loss. 

Chil.     Were  never  orphans  had  so  dear  a  loss. 

Duch.     Was  never  mother  had  so  dear  a  loss.84 

And  again, 

Q.  Margaret.  I  had  an  Edward,  till  a  Richard  kill'd  him ; 

I  had  a  Harry,  till  a  Richard  kill'd  him ; 

Thou  hadst  an  Edward,  till  a  Richard  kill'd  him ; 

Thou  hadst  a  Richard,  till  a  Richard  kill'd  him. 
Duch.  I  had  a  Richard  too,  and  thou  didst  kill  him ; 

I  had  a  Rutland  too,  thou  holp'st  to  kill  him. 
Q.  Marg.         Thou  hadst  a  Clarence  too,  and  Richard  kill'd  him." 

In  "  Richard  the  Third,"  therefore,  we  find  frequent  lament- 
ing scenes,  representing  a  familiar  device  in  the  drama.  They 
also  exhibit  the  conventional  modes  of  expression,  as  where 

60  Act  III,  Scene  2.  9 

81  Act  I,  Scene  i. 
"Act  III,  Scene  i. 

88  Scene  in  which   Bajazet   and  Aga  bewail   fortune.      The  play  is   not 
divided  into  acts  in  the  reprint. 
84  Act  II,  Scene  2. 
"Act  IV,  Scene  4. 


41 

Queen  Elizabeth  enters  "  with  her  hair  about  her  ears,"66  and 
where  the  women  sit  on  the  ground,  and  weep  and  curse  and 
wail  in  turn.67 

Scenes  3  and  4. — These  are  examples  of  the  narrative  scenes 
common  in  the  histories,  and  illustrate  the  close  adherence  to 
sources  and  the  epic  structure  of  the  chronicle  play.  There 
are  similar  scenes  throughout  this  play,  as  Act  III,  Scenes  2, 
3,  and  6,  Act  IV,  Scene  5,  and  Act  V,  Scenes  I  and  2.  In 
this  act,  Scene  3,  the  stage  directions  of  the  Folio,  "  Enter  one 
citizen  at  one  doore,  and  another  at  the  other,"  shows  the  usual 
method  of  managing  such  a  meeting  in  the  street. 

Act  III,  Scene  I. — This  act  opens  with  the  processional 
scene  of  the  young  king's  entrance  into  London,  attended  by 
his  nobles.  As  in  the  funeral  scene,  so  here,  the  opportunity 
for  display  seems  again  to  have  yielded  to  close  adherence  to 
the  source.  In  Act  II,  Scene  3,  Buckingham  suggests  "  some 
little  train  "  for  the  king  on  his  way  to  London,  part  of  this 
train  is  arrested  on  the  road,  and  the  royal  entry  is,  therefore, 
curtailed  of  much  of  its  ostentation.  Another  opportunity,  as 
we  see  later,  for  an  elaborate  procession-scene  is  neglected  in 
the  omission  of  the  coronation  scene  in  Act  IV,  and  the  intro- 
duction merely  of  Richard's  entrance  "  in  pomp,  crowned  "  to 
a  small  number  of  his  followers.  That  the  play  offered  oppor- 
tunities for  large  and  showy  scenes  is  shown  in  the  processions 
in  "  Richardus  Tertius  "  at  the  end  of  each  actio.  In  "  Rich- 
ard the  Third,"  and  in  a  smaller  degree  in  "  The  True  Trag- 
edy," the  authority  of  the  chronicles,  and  the  concentration  of 
the  attention  upon  the  figure  of  Richard  resulted  in  such  dis- 
tractions being  introduced  but  rarely. 

Scene  2. — The  testing  of  Hastings  I  have  included  with  the 
narrative  scenes  under  Act  II,  Scene  3. 

Scene  j. — In  "  The  True  Tragedy,"  the  scene  of  the  im- 
prisonment of  Rivers,  Grey,  and  Vaughan  is  given,  while  in 
this  play  it  is  merely  reported  by  the  messenger  in  Act  II, 
Scene  4.  Shakespeare  chooses  the  less  dramatic  culmination 
of  the  situation,  as  he  does  also  in  the  case  of  Buckingham's 

06  Act  II,  Scene  2. 
"Act  IV,  Scene  4. 


42 

arrest  and  death.  This  may  have  been  done  with  the  idea  of 
displaying  the  popular  theme  of  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy 
which  is  brought  out  in  these  scenes,  or  it  may  be,  with  the 
idea  of  differing  from  the  scenes  used  in  other  plays  on  the 
same  subject. 

Scene  4. — The  dramatic  irony  of  this  council  scene  is  devel- 
oped in  the  rapid  manner  that  reminds  one  of  Marlowe's  work. 
Here  would  have  been  another  opportunity  for  the  use  of  a 
curtained  inner  stage  had  one  been  available.  In  a  similar 
scene  in  "  Sir  Thomas  More,"  the  stage  direction  reads,  "  An 
arras  is  drawne,  and  behinde  it  (as  in  sessions)  sit  the  Lord 
Mayor,  Justice  Suresbie,  etc."68  In  "Richard  the  Third" 
there  is  no  suggestion  of  such  an  arrangement,  for  Bucking- 
ham, Hastings  and  others  enter  and  take  their  places  at  a 
table. 

Scenes  5,  6  and  7. — Scenes  5  and  7,  with  the  gullible  mayor 
and  citizens,  are  distinctly  comic,69  giving  constant  suggestion 
of  "  business,"  and  offering  a  relief  to  the  somber  scenes  before 
and  after.  Both  take  place  in  the  balcony,  representing  first 
the  Tower  walls,  and  later  the  upper  gallery  of  Baynard 
Castle.  The  dress  of  Richard  and  Buckingham  is  given  in 
some  detail,  as  "  rotten  armour,  marvellous  ill-favoured." 
The  scene  of  the  Scrivener,  a  close  following  of  the  source, 
suggests  the  lapse  of  time  before  the  meeting  at  the  Guildhall 
is  over. 

Act  III  is  constructed  on  the  plan  of  three  "  large  "  scenes, 
with  short  narrative  or  preparatory  scenes  intervening.  It  is 
less  somber  than  the  acts  preceding  or  following,  and  seems 
to  offer,  midway  in  the  play,  a  series  of  "  relief  "  scenes.  In 
its  staging  several  properties  are  mentioned,  such  as  the  "  dusty 
armour,"  a  "  head,"  a  table,  chairs,  halberds  for  those  accom- 
panying the  prisoners,  but  no  elaborate  setting  is  indicated. 
The  use  of  the  balcony  is  typical.  First,  the  elevated  platform 
with  the  wall,  arras  or  curtain  beneath,  is  a  part  of  the  Tower 
fortifications,  later  the  same  setting  suggests,  evidently  without 

88  Shakespeare  Society  Publications,  Vol.  23,  page  6. 

89  They  were  so  regarded  in  the  days  of  Kean.     See  Genest,  op.  cit.,  Vol. 
VIII,  page  692. 


43 

any  inconvenience,  a  balcony  overlooking  the  castle  court. 
Such  a  change  of  association  without  change  of  scene  is  emi- 
nently Elizabethan. 

Act  IV ,  Scene  i. — The  lamenting  scene  of  the  women  has 
been  already  treated  in  connection  with  Act  II,  Scene  2. 

Scene  2. — The  stage  directions  read,  "  Sennet.  Enter  Rich- 
ard, in  pomp,  crowned;  Buckingham,  Catesby,  a  Page,  and 
others."  The  effect  of  this  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact 
that  here,  where,  after  this  entrance,  a  "  large,"  eloquent  scene, 
common  in  the  chronicle  plays,  is  expected,  there  is  none  such, 
but  all  is  keyed  to  the  note  of  intrigue  and  apprehension. 
Richard  makes  no  address  to  his  nobles  to  suit  the  stately 
setting,  but  they  are  told  to  stand  apart  while  he  deals  indi- 
vidually with  those  upon  whom  his  machinations  depend. 
The  repeated  importunities  of  Buckingham70  are  not  in  the 
Folio,  but  whether  put  into  the  acting  version  or  not  by  the 
players,  are  characteristic,  and  introduce  another  of  those 
prophetic  sayings  which  were  so  popular  a  theme  in  the  chron- 
icle plays.  Since  Richard  is  so  preeminently  the  leading  figure 
here,  the  "  pomp "  of  the  scene  probably  consisted  in  the 
gorgeousness  of  his  dress71  and  the  appointments  of  the  throne, 
rather  than  in  any  splendor  in  the  setting  or  in  the  grouping 
of  the  other  characters. 

Scene  j. — The  Senecan  device  of  reporting  the  murder  of 
the  princes  is  used  at  this  point  to  keep  the  interest  bent  upon 
Richard.  This,  rather  than  any  effort  to  avoid  repetition, 
would  explain  its  employment,  for,  as  has  been  seen,  situations 
are  constantly  repeated.  In  "  Richardus  Tertius  "  the  murder 
goes  on  within,  while  Brakenbury  muses  upon  the  horror  of 
it  ;72  in  "  The  True  Tragedy,"  the  lines  are  not  quite  clear,  but 
suggest  that  it  might  have  taken  place  in  the  balcony,  before 
the  audience.73  This  scene  may  therefore  show  another  studied 

T0  Lines  103  to  120. 

71  That  Richard  dressed  gorgeously  is  shown  by  the  chronicles,  and  by 
the  Wardrobe  Accounts  which  have  been  preserved.  Henslowe's  entries 
suggest  richness  of  dress  as  common  on  the  stage. 

"Actio  III. 

73  Shakespeare  Society  Publications,  Vol.  21,  page  44. 


44 

variation  from  the  play  that  had  preceded  "  Richard  the 
Third  "  on  the  stage. 

Scene  4. — The  remarkable  company  of  wailing  women  in 
this  scene  has  been  discussed.  We  have  here  a  repetition  of 
the  wooing  in  Act  I,  but,  if  possible,  under  even  more  pre- 
posterous circumstances.  It  is  hard  to  conceive  how  this 
stichomythic  reasoning  could  have  been  other  than  tedious 
except  to  an  audience  that  delighted  in  all  sorts  of  playing 
with  words.74  This  part  of  the  scene,  which  is  very  long  in 
the  Folio,  was  shorter  by  nearly  two  hundred  lines  in  the 
Quarto.  The  scene  passes  into  the  preparations  for  the  con- 
flict with  Richmond,  in  which  Richard  in  frenzied  haste  gives 
and  repeals  his  commands. 

Scene  5. — The  function  of  this  scene  before  Lord  Derby's 
house  is  to  give  Elizabeth's  decision  concerning  her  daughter, 
and  to  show  the  feeling  of  Richard's  army.  It  illustrates  at 
the  same  time  the  very  loose,  epic  structure  of  the  play. 

Act  V ,  Scenes  I  and  2. — As  has  been  already  shown,  these 
two  scenes  are  epic  in  nature,  and  detract  from  the  dramatic 
situation  in  their  close  adherence  to  the  source. 

Scene  j. — On  the  one  side  Richard  enters  with  his  troops 
and  orders  his  tent  up ;  on  the  other  side  of  the  stage,  immedi- 
ately after,  Richmond  and  his  men  come  in,  his  tent  is  pitched, 
and  they  withdraw  into  it.  A  similar  scene  of  stage  carpentry 
is  found  in  "  The  Warning  for  Fair  Women,"  where  the  direc- 
tion is,  "  Enter  some  to  prepare  the  judgement  seat  to  the 
Lord  Mayor,  etc.  .  .  .  who  being  set  command  Browne  to  be 
brought  forth."75  Again,  in  "  Sir  Thomas  More,"  one  scene 
is  partly  taken  up  with  the  preparations  for  a  mask,  the  plac- 
ing of  seats,  etc.,76  and  in  "  The  Spanish  Tragedy,"  Hieronimo 

M  K.  Rich.  Say  that  the  king,  which  may  command,  entreats. 

Q.  Eliz.  That  at  her  hands  which  the  king's  King  forbids. 

K.  Rich.  Say,  she  shall  be  a  high  and  mighty  queen. 

Q.  Eliz.  To  wail  the  title,  as  her  mother  doth. 

K.  Rich.  Say,  I  will  love  her  everlastingly. 

Q.  Eliz.  But  how  long  shall  that  title  "  ever  "  last  ? 

K.  Rich.  Sweetly  in  force  unto  her  fair  life's  end. 

Q.  Eliz.  But  how  long   fairly   shall  her  sweet   life  last?  etc. 
78  Act  II. 
18  Shakespeare  Society  Publications,  Vol.  23,  page  53. 


45 

"  Knocks  up  the  curtaine,"  and  hangs  up  the  "  title,"  in  getting 
ready  for  the  play.7T 

The  incidents  that  follow  take  place  successively  in  the  two 
tents,  care  being  taken  to  keep  those  on  one  side  off  the  stage 
or  shut  within  the  tent,  while  the  others  are  the  center  of 
interest.  An  exact  counterpart  of  this  arrangement  is  found 
in  the  fifth  act  of  "  Histriomastix,"  where  the  action  even 
takes  place  on  both  sides  at  the  same  time.  "  Enter  Lyon- 
Rash  to  Fourchier  sitting  in  his  study  at  one  end  of  the  stage ; 
at  the  other  end  enter  Vourcher  to  Velure  in  his  shop  " ;  after 
a  short  conversation  between  the  first  two,  "  Lyon-Rash  and 
Fourchier  sit  and  whisper  whilst  the  other  two  speak."  The 
scene  of  the  camps  on  Bos  worth  Field  is,  from  the  standpoint 
of  staging,  the  most  interesting  in  the  play,  for  it  is  a  direct 
survival  of  the  medieval  "  stations  "  or  "  mansions,"  and  of 
the  method  by  which  places  remote  from  each  other  were, 
without  any  inconvenience  to  the  audience,  represented  simul- 
taneously.78 The  evidences  of  this  "  incongruous,"  or  "  sym- 
bolic," or  "  plastic  "  stage,  as  it  is  variously  called,  in  Eliza- 
bethan plays  have  been  fully  discussed  by  Mr.  Reynolds  and 
Mr.  Corbin,79  and  need  not  be  treated  here.  It  is  interesting 
to  note,  however,  that  of  all  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  this  scene 
offers  the  most  striking  survival  of  such  archaic  arrange- 
ment.80 That  it  was  conscious  medievalism  we  are  led  to 
believe  from  the  Prologue  of  "  Henry  the  Fifth." 

This  scene  also  furnishes  an  instance  of  how  Shakespeare 
used  his  sources  in  this  play,  in  his  representation  of  the 
ghosts.81  The  ghost  in  Elizabethan  plays  is  one  of  the  inherit- 

"Act  IV,  Scene  3. 

78  For  a   fuller  discussion,   see  Brander   Matthews,   The  Development  of 
the  Drama,  Chapter  IV. 
"Cited  above. 

80  "  Whatever  share  he   (Shakespeare)   may  have  had,   moreover,  in  the 
actual  phrasing  of  Titus  Andronicus  and  Richard  III,  there  can  be  little 
doubt   that   the   primary    structure    of    the    scenes,    so    reminiscent    of   the 
archaic  stage,  was  the   work   of   an  earlier  hand."     Corbin,   Shakespeare 
and  the  Plastic  Stage,  page  377. 

81  See  on  this  general  subject,  The  Pre-Shakespearian  Ghost  and  Shake- 
speare's Ghosts,  by  F.  W.  Moorman.    Modern  Language  Review,  1906. 


46 

ances  from  the  Senecan  drama,  principally  through  the  work 
of  Kyd.  In  "  The  Spanish  Tragedy  "  the  ghost  acts  as  the 
impulse  to  revenge,  and  also  as  a  Chorus,  first  to  introduce 
the  action,  later,  at  the  end  of  each  act,  to  sum  up  what  had 
been  accomplished  and  to  plan  further  incitement  to  revenge. 
Although  the  vogue  of  plays  in  which  the  ghost  figures  promi- 
nently did  not  culminate  until  somewhat  later,  such  are  found 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Senecan  influence  on  the  English 
drama.  One  of  the  earliest  of  these  plays  is  "  The  Misfor- 
tunes of  Arthur"  (1589),  where  Gorlois'  ghost  speaks  the 
Prologue.  In  "  Alphonsus  of  Arragon  "  (1589),  the  figure 
of  Galenas  is  called  up,82  and  in  "  The  Wounds  of  Civil  War  " 
(1590),  a  Genius  appears  to  Scilla,83  both  of  which  serve  this 
same  purpose  in  stage  effect.  In  "  The  True  Tragedy  "  the 
ghost  appears  at  the  opening  of  the  play,  a  Prologue  ghost 
as  in  strict  Senecan  use.  In  "  Locrine  "  the  function  of  the 
ghost  is  extended  so  that  it  participates  in  the  action.84  A 
further  development  is  found  in  "  Woodstock  "  and  in  "  Rich- 
ard the  Third,"  where  several  ghosts  appear,  but,  more  con- 
vincingly, in  a  dream.  The  scene  in  "  Richard  the  Third  " 
bears  such  a  close  resemblance  to  the  one  in  "  Woodstock," 
and  differs  so  much  in  this  from  any  other  extant  play  of  this 
date,  that  it  might  suggest  indebtedness  to  the  earlier  drama.85 
There  is,  however,  ample  suggestion  in  the  source  for  such  a 
scene  without  recourse  to  any  model.  In  More's  "  History  of 
King  Richard  III,"  it  is  said,  "  He  took  ill  rest  a  nightes,  lay 
long  wakyng  and  musing,  sore  weried  with  care  and  watch, 
rather  slumbered  than  slept,  troubled  wyth  feareful  dreams,"88 
and  all  of  the  other  chronicles  tell  of  these  visions.  The  evil 
dreams  are  thus  described  in  "  Richardus  Tertius," 

Horrenda  noctis  visa  terrent  proximae. 
Postquam  sepulta  nox  quietem  suaserat, 
altusque  teneris  somnus  obrepsit  genis : 

"Act  III,  Scene  2. 

88  Act  IV,  Scene  2. 

"Act  IV,  Scene  2. 

"Fleay  conjectures  1591  for  the  date  of  Woodstock. 

88  Quoted  by  Churchill,  in  Richard  Third  up   to  Shakespeare,  page  458. 


47 

subito  premebant  dira  furiarum  cohors, 
saevoque  laceravit  impetu  corpus  tremens, 
et  foeda  rabidis  praeda  sum  daemonibus : 
somnosque  tandem  magnus  excussit  tremor, 
et  pulsa  artus  horridus  nostros  metus. 
Heu !   quid  truces  minantur  umbrae  Tartar!  ?8T 

In  "  The  True  Tragedy  "  a  more  explicit  description  is  given, 

Sleep  I,  wake  I,  or  whatsoever  I  do, 

Me   thinkes  their  ghoasts   come  gaping  for  revenge, 

Whom  I  have  slain  in  reaching  for  a  crown, 

Clarence  complaines,   and  crieth  for  reuenge, 

My  nepheues  bloods,  Reuenge,  reuenge  doth  crie. 

And  euery  one  cries,  let  the  tyrant  die.88 

This  scene  in  Richard  the  Third,"  therefore,  was  merely  a 
dramatization,  in  line  with  a  popular  device  of  the  day,  of  a 
part  of  the  legend  which  had  been  treated  in  narrative  in  the 
preceding  plays. 

The  representation  of  ghosts  may  be  gathered  in  some  detail 
from  the  stage  directions  and  references  in  the  text  of  the 
dozen  or  so  plays  of  this  period  in  which  the  ghost  appears. 
Their  entrance  upon  the  stage  was  sometimes  accompanied  by 
thunder  and  lightning,89  at  times  by  smoke,  as  described  in 
"  The  Warning  for  Fair  Women,"80  but  oftener  they  seem  to 
have  appeared  suddenly  and  quietly.  There  is  some  indica- 
tion that  they  arose  from  a  trap  door,  especially  where  the 
visitant  is  to  perform  no  action,  as  in  "  The  Spanish  Tragedy," 
"  The  Wounds  of  Civil  War,"  "  The  True  Tragedy,"  "  The 
Misfortunes  of  Arthur,"  and  "  Alphonsus  of  Arragon."  In 
one  case,  at  least,  there  are  stage  directions  indicating  an  exit 
by  the  trap  door,  in  "  The  Old  Wives'  Tale,"  where  Jack,  the 
ghost,  "leaps  down  in  the  ground  "91  after  his  beneficent  labors 
are  at  an  end.  The  spirit  was  sometimes  represented  as  speak- 
ing Latin,  as  in  "  The  True  Tragedy,"  "  Locrine,"  and  "  The 
Wounds  of  Civil  War,"  probably  because  of  the  mysterious- 

87Actio  III,  Actus  V. 

88  Shakespeare  Society  Publications,  Vol.   21,   page  61. 

89  Locrine,  Act  V,  Scene  4.      Woodstock,  Act  V,  Scene  i. 

90  Induction,   lines   51-2. 

81  Bullen  edition,  page  346. 


48 

ness  added  by  the  use  of  another  tongue.  The  ghost  came  to 
be  caricatured  as  shrieking  "  Vindicta !  ",  as  we  see  in  "  The 
Warning  for  Fair  Women,"*2  in  Jonson's  "  Poetaster  "93  and 
Heywood's  "  Captives."94  The  ghosts  in  "  Richard  the 
Third  "  do  none  of  these  things ;  they  enter  at  one  door  evi- 
dently, and  go  out  at  the  opposite  side;  they  speak  English; 
the  light  "  burns  blue "  it  seems,  but  their  coming  and  going 
is  quiet,  with  a  certain  solemnity  that  must  have  been  particu- 
larly impressive  to  an  audience  where  belief  in  such  visitations 
was  unquestioned. 

From  "  The  Warning  for  Fair  Women  "  we  know  that  it 
had  been  customary  for  the  ghosts  to  appear  wrapped  in  a 
sheet,  or  in  a  leather  pilch,85  and  Henslowe's  entries  of 
"  j  gostes  sewte,  and  j  gostes  bodeyes,"  and  "  j  gostes  crowne," 
suggest  some  kind  of  distinctive  dress.  In  "  Alphonsus  of 
Arragon  "  the  ghost  appeared  in  a  Cardinal's  robes  ;98  in  "  Old 
Wives'  Tale,"  Jack  must  have  been  in  his  usual  dress,  as  his 
ghostly  character  is  unknown  until  he  divulges  it  at  the  end. 
The  most  interesting  feature  of  their  presentation  is  the  at- 
tempt to  represent  their  invisibility.  Henslowe's  entry  of 
"  a  robe  for  to  goo  invisibell "  awakens  one's  imagination,  but 
the  nature  of  it  is  unascertainable.  In  "  Old  Wives'  Tale  " 
we  find  "  Enter  (the  ghost  of)  Jack  invisible  and  take  Sacro- 
pant's  wreath  from  his  head,  etc."97  As  for  their  "  make  up," 
it  is  evident  that  the  face  was  whitened  and  that  the  hands, 
and  perhaps  the  face,  were  sometimes  smeared  with  blood. 
Thus  in  "  Locrine  "  Humber  says, 

But  why  comes  Albanact's  bloody  ghost?98 

In  Lodge's  "  Wit's  Miserie  "  one  of  the  devils  is  said  to  be 

"Induction,  line  50. 

98  Act  III,  Scene  i. 
94  Act  IV. 

96  Induction,  lines  47-8. 

A  filthy  whining  ghost, 
Lapt  in  some  foul  sheet,  or  in  a  leather  pilch,  etc. 

99  Act  III,  Scene  2.      "  Rise  Calchas  up,  in  a  white  surplice  and  a  Card- 
inal's Myter." 

97  Bullen  edition,  page  342. 

98  Act  III,  Scene  5. 


49 

"  a  foule  lubber,  and  looks  as  pale  as  the  visard  of  the 
ghost."99  Horatio  addresses  Andrea's  ghost  in  "  The  First 
Part  of  Hieronimo  "  as  "  my  pale  friend."100  In  trying  to 
realize  the  effect  of  these  scenes,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  Elizabethan  stage  did  not  have  the  advantages,  especially 
necessary  for  such  subjects,  of  artificial  lighting.  The  stage 
in  this  scene  might  have  been  darkened  in  some  way,  with 
only  the  light  which  "burned  blue"  when  the  ghosts  ap- 
proached, an  effect  not  so  easily  obtained  on  a  stage  open  to 
the  sky  except  where  it  was  shaded  by  the  "  heavens,"  and 
where  any  illusory  effects  to  be  attained  by  strong  lighting 
from  a  particular  quarter  were  out  of  the  question.  What 
conditions  prevailed  in  this  play  is  uncertain,  in  how  far  they 
were  conventional,  and  in  how  far  they  show  the  more  sig- 
nificant presentation  of  the  ghost  found  in  "Hamlet"  and 
"  Macbeth." 

Scenes  4  and  5. — The  play  closes  with  two  short  but  exciting 
scenes  on  the  battle  field.  In  these  chronicle  plays  the  battles 
seem  to  have  made  the  greatest  impression  on  the  audience,  and 
they  became  the  special  mark  of  plays  of  this  kind,  as  is  seen 
in  "  The  Warning  for  Fair  Women,"  where  Hystorie  enters 
with  drum  and  ensign.101  Richard's  line, 

A  horse !   a  horse  !    my  kingdom  for  a  horse  ! 

from  the  battle  scene  in  this  play  seems  to  have  been  the  one 
that  most  impressed  the  audience,  so  far  as  can  be  judged  from 
its  recurrence,  while  the  stir  and  bustle,  the  noise  and  occasion 
for  hand  to  hand  contests  supplied  a  realistic  element  very  at- 
tractive to  the  "  groundlings." 

The  frequent  occurrence  of  such  scenes  makes  it  possible  to 
follow  the  changing  nature  of  their  presentation  from  the 
earliest  plays  to  "  Richard  the  Third."  The  two  earliest  ex- 
amples exhibit  typically  Senecan  and  medieval  handling  respec- 
tively. In  "  Gorboduc  "  (1562),  the  battle  is  relegated  to  the 
dumb  show,  and  is  described  thus, 

98  Wit's  Miserie  or  the  World's  Madness,  1569. 

100  Act  III,  Scene  3. 

101  Induction. 
5 


50 

"  First  the  drommes  and  fluites  began  to  sound,  during  which  there  came 
forth  upon  the  stage  a  company  of  hargabusiers  and  of  armed  men  all 
in  order  of  battaile.  These,  after  their  peeces  discharged,  and  that  the 
armed  men  had  three  times  marched  about  the  stage,  departed,  and  then  the 
drommes  and  fluits  did  cease."  102 

In  "  Horestes  "  (1567),  on  the  other  hand,  the  army  and  the 
battle  play  an  important  part  in  the  action.  It  may  not  be 
uninteresting  to  give  in  detail  the  martial  scenes  in  this,  as  they 
show  the  method  of  presentation  at  this  early  date.  When  the 
army  first  comes  on  the  stage  the  directions  are,  "  Let  ye  drum 
play  and  enter  Horestes  with  his  band;  and  march  about  the 
stage."  After  a  few  words,  they  "  march  about  and  go  out." 
When  it  comes  to  the  battle  after  the  parley,  and  the  storming 
of  the  city,  it  reads,  "  Let  Egistus  enter  and  set  hys  men  in 
a  rayl,  and  let  the  drom  playe  tyll  Horestes  speaketh."  Hores- 
tes and  Egistus  defy  each  other,  and  then,  "  stryke  up  your 
drum  and  fyght  a  good  whil,  and  then  let  sum  of  Egistus  men 
flye,  and  then  take  hym  and  let  Horestes  drav  him  vyolently, 
and  let  ye  drums  sease."  In  "  Richardus  Tertius  "  (1579), 
although  a  Senecan  play,  a  popular  element  is  introduced  in 
bringing  the  battle  on  the  stage.  It  is  described  in  some  detail 
thus, 

"  Lett  gunns  goe  of,  and  trumpetts  sound,  with  all  stir  of  Soldiers  with- 
out ye  hall,  untill  such  time  as  ye  lord  Stanley  be  on  ye  stage  ready  to 
speake." 

Stanley  addresses  the  soldiers,  urges  them  to  fight  bravely,  and 
then  the  battle  is  heard  behind  the  scenes  as  before. 

"  After  the  like  noise  againe,  let  souldiers  run  from  ye  feild,  over  the 
stage  one  after  another,  flinginge  of  their  harnesse,  and  att  length  let  some 
come  haltinge  and  wounded.  After  this  let  Henerye,  Earle  of  Richmond 
come  tryumphing,  haveinge  ye  body  of  K.  Richard  dead  on  a  horse,  Catesby, 
and  Ratliffe  and  others  bound."  1M 

We  find  that  the  later  development  followed  closely  the  meth- 
od marked  out  in  these  two  plays.  In  the  York  and  Lancaster 
plays,  where  we  have  a  succession  of  battles,  great  importance 
is  given  to  the  marshalling  of  troops,  the  marching  in  of  the 

102 «  The  Order  and  Signification  of  the  Domme  Show  "  before  the  Fifth 
Act. 

108Actio  III. 


51 

forces,  the  passing  of  the  companies  across  the  stage ;  and  the 
conflict  is  represented  by  a  succession  of  single  encounters  be- 
tween the  leading  figures,  accompanied  by  the  running  in  and 
out  of  the  soldiers.  In  Marlowe's  plays,  the  noise  of  battle 
rather  than  the  actual  fighting  is  used  for  scenic  effect,  as  in 
"  Tamburlaine,"  Part  I,  Act  III,  Scene  3,  where  the  battle  rages 
without  while  Zenocrate  and  Zabina  carry  on  a  woman's  war  of 
words ;  or  in  Part  II,  Act  IV,  Scenes  I  and  2,  where  the  dullard 
son  of  Tamburlaine  plays  cards  while  the  noise  of  the  battle 
is  heard  in  the  distance;  or  in  the  last  scene  where  the  dying 
Tamburlaine  is  borne  out  to  the  conflict.104  In  the  imitators  of 
Marlowe,  we  find  the  general  method  of  the  chronicle  plays. 
In  "  The  Battle  of  Alcazar,"  for  instance,  these  scenes  are 
represented  at  great  length  and  in  great  detail,105  and  so  in  the 
other  plays  of  the  time. 

There  seems  to  be  a  typical  development  of  the  steps  in 
these  situations,  thus;  (i)  the  news  of  the  coming  of  the 
enemy;  (2)  the  preparations  immediately  before  the  battle, 
as  the  entrance  of  the  troops,106  the  defiance,  etc.;  (3)  the 
fight,  in  which  the  alarm,  the  continuous  sound  of  fighting 
without,  the  excursions,  the  single  encounters,  the  death  of 
one  or  more  wounded  leaders,  and  the  sounding  of  the 
retreat  are  found  in  nearly  every  scene  of  this  sort;  and 
(4)  the  triumphant  entry  of  the  victor,  bringing  the  trophies 
with  him.  The  hero  is  rewarded  or  crowned  and  preparations 
are  made  for  the  burial  of  the  slain.107  All  these  stages 
appear  in  "  Richard  the  Third,"  the  announcement  of 
Richmond's  coming,  the  march  of  both  armies  to  Bosworth, 
the  preparation  the  night  before  the  battle,  with  the  feeling 
of  foreboding  increased  by  the  appearance  of  the  ghosts, 
the  warning  message  to  Richard,  the  orations  to  the  armies, 
with  the  call  to  arms.  Two  scenes  are  given  to  the  battle, 

104  There  is  only  one  encounter  on  the  stage,  in  Tamburlaine,  Part  I,  Act 
III,  Scene  3. 

106  Act  V. 

108  The  most  elaborate  scenes  of  this  sort  are  found  in  The  Contentions. 

107  Examples  of  these   are   found   in  Henry   the  Sixth,   The  Contentions, 
Locrine,  The  Wounds  of  Civil  War,  Alphonsus  of  Arragon,  etc. 


52 

the  last  showing  the  field  after  Richard  has  fallen,109  when 
Richmond  enters  in  triumph,  congratulations  are  exchanged, 
Richmond  is  crowned,  and  the  play  ends  with  orders  for  the 
burial  of  those  who  have  fallen,  and  the  announcement  of 
the  marriage  of  Richmond  and  Elizabeth.109 

The  opportunity  for  effective  scenes  is  apparent.  The 
leader  with  his  followers,  the  oration,  the  encounter,  all  place 
the  principal  actor  in  heroic  situations,  and  the  triumph  and 
crowning  give  further  occasion  for  brilliant  effects.  What 
the  setting  actually  was  may  be  gathered  in  some  detail.  It 
is  probable  that  the  equipment  for  martial  scenes  was  more 
elaborate  than  for  any  other.  The  parts  of  the  armor  are  re- 
ferred to  very  frequently,  and  the  description  of  the  "  solem- 
nity "of  arming  the  prince  in  "  Edward  the  Third  "110  shows 
with  what  care  for  detail  such  scenes  were  reproduced.  In 
"  Richard  the  Third  "  the  King  gives  directions  to  Catesby, 

Look  that  my  staves  be  sound,  and  not  too  heavy,111 

showing  that  he  carried  a  lance.  Later,  reference  is  made 
to  his  sword,112  and  archers  are  spoken  of  as  the  main  part 
of  the  army.118  That  a  distinguishing  dress  was  used  for 
soldiers  of  different  nationalities  would  seem  apparent  from 

108 "  According  to  the  old  stage  direction  Richard  dies  on  the  stage,  and 
it  is  remarkable  that  Shakespeare  has  given  him  no  dying  words,  and 
doubtless  the  omission  is  designed  as  it  is  characteristic.  It  is  left  to  the 
actor  to  give  the  last  expression  to  the  state  of  mind  which  is  the  true 
retribution  of  Richard,  in  the  spirit  and  character  of  his  combat  and  fall. 
Burbage,  the  first  and  celebrated  representative  of  Richard,  had  no  doubt 
the  poet's  own  instructions  for  this  great  conclusion,  and  certain  glim- 
merings and  true  stage  tradition  may  easily  have  reached  and  we  may 
hope  did  not  die  out  with  Kean.  The  reader  of  the  play,  who  has  but  the 
general  stage-directions  in  compensation,  may  pause  to  bring  back  in 
thought  the  impression  of  the  interval  before  the  closing  speeches."  W.  W. 
Lloyd,  Critical  Essays.  Richard  III. 

109  The  barbarous  treatment  of  Richard's  body,  found  in  the  chronicles 
and  in  The  True  Tragedy,  is  omitted  in  Shakespeare's  play. 

110 Act  III,  Scene  3.  "Enter  four  Heralds,  bringing  a  coat-armour,  a 
helmet,  a  lance,  and  a  shield."  Then  follows  the  arming. 

mAct  V,  Scene  3,  line  65. 

m  Ditto,  line  163. 

m  Ditto,  lines  285  and  339. 


53 

a  stage  direction  in  "  Edward  the  Third,"  "  Enter  Bohemia, 
and  Forces;  and  Aid  of  Danes,  Poles  and  Muscovites."114 
Distinction  of  weapons  is  suggested  in  "  Locrine,"  as  Corineus 
carries  a  club,  and  Locrine  a  curtle-axe  and  sword,  while  the 
Scythian  Humber  has  a  helm,  targe  and  dart.  The  Scythians 
are  armed  in  "  azure  blew  "  and  their  banners  are  "  crost  with 
argeant  streams."115  Distinctions  were  made  in  the  martial 
airs  also.  In  "  Henry  the  Sixth,"  Part  I,  Act  III,  Scene  3, 
the  stage  directions  read,  "  Here  sound  an  English  march. 
Enter  and  pass  over  at  a  distance,  Talbot  and  his  forces." 
After  a  few  lines  it  says,  "  French  march.  Enter  the  Duke 
of  Burgundy  and  forces."  The  drums,  trumpets  and  colors 
of  different  forces  are  constantly  referred  to.  The  King 
seems  to  have  worn  his  crown  in  battle.  This  is  mentioned  in 
"  Henry  the  Sixth,"  Part  III,  Act  IV,  Scene  4,  in  "  Tambur- 
laine,"  Part  I,  Act  II,  Scene  4,  in  "The  True  Tragedy" 
and  "Richardus  Tertius."  In  "Richard  the  Third"  Derby 
enters  bearing  the  crown  and  says: 

Lo,  here,  this  long  usurped  royalty 

From  the  dead  temples  of  this  bloody  wretch 

Have  I  pluck'd  off,  to  grace  thy  brow  withal.118 

The  presentation  of  the  battle,  therefore,  is  seen  to  have 
furnished  the  most  serious  attempts  at  realistic  staging  that 
we  find  in  these  early  plays.  That  these  attempts  were  not 
without  their  detractors  is  seen  in  the  Prologue  to  Jonson's 
"  Every  Man  in  His  Humour,"  where  he  tells  how  in  the 
theatres  they, 

with  three  rusty  swords, 

And  help  of  some  few  foot  and  half-foot  words, 
Fight  over  York  and  Lancaster's  long  jars. 

The  realization  of  the  inadequacy  of  these  representations 

114  Act  III,  Scene  i. 

115  Act  II,  Scene  3. 

118  Women  figure  prominently  in  battle  scenes  and  are  sometimes  repre- 
sented as  taking  part  in  the  fighting,  as  in  Alphonsus  of  Arragon  and  The 
Contention.  In  Sir  Thomas  More  Doll  enters  "  in  a  shirt  of  maile,  a 
headpiece,  sword  and  buckler." 


54 

led  Shakespeare  to  prefix  to  "Henry  the  Fifth"  his  often 
quoted  apology.117 

Such  are  the  scenes  in  their  sequence.  It  is  apparent  that 
their  arrangement  is  governed  very  slightly  by  an  effort  to 
obtain  contrast,  or  to  reach  any  dramatic  climax.118  The 
structure,  so  far  as  scene  arrangement  is  concerned,  is  en- 
tirely epic.  Dramatic  structure,  so  far  as  it  is  present,  comes 
from  the  exposition  of  Richard's  character.  The  scenes  and 
situations  which  would  make  the  play  something  new  to  an 
audience  familiar  with  "  The  True  Tragedy  "  and  the  York 
and  Lancaster  plays,119  were  characterized  by  going  beyond 
and  making  better  the  suggestions  of  earlier  writers,  rather 
than  by  actually  introducing  novel  effects.  Thus,  the  wooing 
of  Anne  is  a  development  of  similar  scenes  found  in  other 
plays,  and  the  murder  of  Clarence  is  a  direct  imitation  of 
"  Edward  the  Second."  There  seems  to  be  a  constant  effort 
to  carry  the  audience  off  its  feet,  to  go  farther  in  the  elabora- 
tion of  these  situations  than  any  one  before.  This  may  ac- 
count in  some  degree  for  the  constant  repetition.  Thus  the 
wooing  of  Anne  finds  a  counterpart  in  the  solicitation  of 
Elizabeth,  the  preparation  for  the  murder  of  Clarence  is  re- 

117  Can  this  cockpit  hold 

The  vasty  fields  of  France?  or  may  we  cram 
Within  this  wooden  O  the  very  casques 
That  did  affright  the  air  at  Agincourt? 

Piece  out  our  imperfections  with  your  thoughts ; 

Into  a  thousand  parts  divide  one  man, 

And  make  imaginary  puissance : 

Think  when  we  talk  of  horses,  that  you  see  them 

Printing  their  proud  hoofs  i'  the  receiving  earth ; 

For  'tis  your  thoughts  that  now  must  deck  our  kings. 

118  Pofessor  R.   G.   Moulton  in  Shakespeare  as  a  Dramatic  Artist,   finds 
in  Richard  the  Third  other  than  epic  unity  by  tracing  in  it  the  network  and 
the  "  unvarying  reiteration  of  Nemesis  "  which  "  has  the  effect  of  giving 
rhythm  to  fate," — a  point  of  view  which  has  given  occasion  for  an  inter- 
esting exposition  of  the  plot,  but  which  seems  to  be  pushed  to  the  verge 
of  absurdity. 

119  Richardus    Tertius   would    not    affect    the    popular    conception,    as    its 
performance  was  restricted  to  the  university. 


55 

peated  in  part  in  the  conference  with  Tyrrel,  the  weeping 
women  are  the  center  of  no  less  than  four  scenes,  and 
ghosts  appear  to  the  number  of  eleven.  Sheer  effect  is 
sought,  rather  than  the  economical  and  orderly  development 
of  the  story. 

Yet  from  this  examination  of  the  scenes  in  "  Richard  the 
Third  "  and  of  their  relation  to  similar  scenes  in  other  plays 
of  the  time,  it  is  seen  that,  whatever  may  have  been  its  effect 
upon  the  audience,  this  effect  was  little  furthered  by  elaborate 
staging.  There  is  no  requirement  for  such  devices  as  were 
common  at  the  time,  as  in  the  banquet  scene  in  "  The  Jew  of 
Malta  "  where  Barabas  is  dropped  into  the  cauldron,120  or  in 
"  Alphonsus  of  Arragon "  where  Venus  is  let  down  from 
the  top  of  the  stage  and  at  the  end  of  the  play  is  drawn  up 
again,  or  in  "  Tancred  and  Gismunda  "  where  Cupid  "  cometh 
out  of  the  heavens  in  a  cradle  of  flowers  "  ;121  nor  are  there 
as  in  other  plays,  any  appearances  of  blazing  stars,122  or  suns123 
or  moons.12*  It  has  been  shown  that  there  is  a  marked  absence 
apparently,  of  brilliant  scenes,  such  as  processions,  large  court 
scenes,  etc.  Hardly  any  contemporary  play  requires  less  in 
scenery  and  properties.  In  the  most  elaborate  scenes,  where 
Richard  enters  "  in  pomp  "  with  the  setting  of  the  throne- 
room,125  and  where  the  two  tents  are  on  the  stage,126  the 
furnishings  were  in  no  way  extraordinary  and  made  no  un- 
usual demands.  Even  the  ghost  scene  was  a  simple  matter 
for  an  audience  which  probably  demanded  no  greater  illusory 
effects  here  than  in  the  rest  of  the  play.  The  greatest  elabora- 
tion evidently  showed  itself  in  the  gorgeousness  of  Richard's 
dress,  which  centered  attention  on  the  notable  feature  of  the 
play. 

This  play,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  contributes  no  certain  evidences 

120  Act  V,  Scene  4. 

121  Act  I,  Scene   i. 
^Battle  of  Alcazar. 

123  The  Contention,  Part  II. 

124  The  Troublesome  Raigne. 
128  Act  IV,  Scene  2. 

mAct  V,  Scene  3. 


56 

of  the  use  of  an  inner  stage.  Indeed,  as  has  been  pointed  out, 
in  more  than  one  instance  where  the  use  of  it  would  suggest 
itself  as  the  most  natural  arrangement,  the  text  seems  to  show 
that  it  was  not  used.  The  directions  call  for  a  balcony  and  two 
doors,  but  give  no  other  indications  of  the  divisions  of  the 
stage. 

Place  is  indicated  in  the  text,  or,  in  two  instances,  by  the 
setting  of  the  throne  and  of  the  council  table.  There  was 
here,  then,  no  necessity  to  resort  to  the  device  of  placards, 
although  there  is  no  proof  that  it  was  not  done.  The  change 
of  scene  is  not  frequent  and  about  half  of  the  scenes  are  un- 
located. 

That  intermissions  between  the  acts  were  common  seems 
to  be  shown,  in  many  plays  of  the  time,  by  the  presence  of  the 
dumb  shows,127  by  the  part  of  the  Presenter,  or  of  a  Chorus 
at  the  end  of  each  stage  of  the  action,  as  in  "  Soliman  and 
Perseda,"  and  by  references  to  musical  interludes.128  There 
are  however,  no  indications  in  "  Richard  the  Third  "  of  any 
such  breaks  in  the  performance. 

On  the  question  of  the  text  used,  the  position  of  the  Cam- 
bridge editors  seems  to  be  the  most  tenable,  namely,  that  the 
Quarto  represents  the  original  manuscript  of  the  author  with 
some  few  changes.129  This  therefore,  would  represent  the 
acting  version,  as  nearly  as  it  is  obtainable.180  The  main 
differences  between  this  acting  version  and  the  text  of  the 
Folio,  is  that  it  is  shorter  by  about  two  hundred  lines,  an 
obvious  advantage  in  a  play  numbering  3620  lines.131  How 

121  Locrine,  The  Battle  of  Alcazar,  Alphonsus  of  Arragon,  James  the 
Fourth,  The  Misfortunes  of  Arthur,  Tancred  and  Gismunda. 

""  See  W.  T.  Lawrence,  Music  in  the  Elizabethan  Theatre.  Shakespeare 
Jahrbuch,  Vol.  44. 

128  See  Cambridge  Shakespeare,  preface  to  Richard  the  Third.  A  de- 
tailed discussion  of  the  relation  of  the  Folio  to  the  first  Quarto,  with 
conclusions  opposed  to  those  of  the  Cambridge  editors,  by  J.  Spedding 
and  E.  H.  Pickersgill,  may  be  found  in  The  New  Shakespeare  Society's 
Transactions,  1875. 

180  The  Bankside  Shakespeare,  edited  by  Appleton  Morgan,  Shakespeare 
Society  of  New  York,  1891,  gives  on  opposite  pages  the  text  of  the  1597 
Quarto  and  the  first  Folio. 

m  Richard  the  Third  is  the  longest  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  except  Hamlet. 


57 

this  number  could  be  given  in  a  two  hours  performance,132 
when  to-day  two  thousand  lines  are  considered  the  limit,  may 
be  accounted  for,  in  part  at  least,  by  the  greater  rapidity  pos- 
sible where  no  time  was  lost  in  the  shifting  of  scenery,  and 
by  the  fact  that  in  "  Richard  the  Third  "  very  few  properties 
had  to  be  moved  about  during  the  play.  The  absence  of  dis- 
tinctly comic  scenes  would  also  further  this  rapidity  of  per- 
formance, for  it  is  in  the  comic  scenes  that  most  time  for 
"  business  "  must  be  allowed. 

The  prominence  of  the  hero  is  one  of  the  noteworthy  char- 
acteristics of  this  play.  As  a  practical  result  of  this  Richard 
is  upon  the  stage  more  constantly  than  the  hero  in  the  typical 
chronicle.  In  "  Edward  the  First "  about  as  much  is  spoken 
when  the  king  is  off  the  stage  as  when  he  is  on,  i.  e.,  he  is  on 
the  stage  just  half  the  time.  In  "Henry  the  Fifth"  and 
"  The  Troublesome  Raigne,"  the  hero  is  on  rather  more  than 
half  the  time.  Richard  is  on  the  stage  about  two-thirds  of 
the  time.  This  however,  is  not  so  good  a  test  as  the  impor- 
tance of  the  scenes  in  which  the  hero  does  not  figure.  In 
"  Edward  the  First,"  the  Lluellen  scenes  run  parallel  with  the 
main  plot  and  claim  a  large  part  of  the  interest  as  well  as  of  the 
time.  In  "  Henry  the  Fifth,"  the  scenes  in  which  Henry  does 
not  appear  are  either  comic  or  more  important  by  the  figure  of 
Henry  the  Fourth.  In  "  The  Troublesome  Raigne,"  John  is  no 
more  interesting  than  Arthur  or  Falconbridge.  Richard  figures 
in  fifteen  out  of  the  twenty-five  scenes ;  five  of  the  ten  scenes  in 
which  he  does  not  appear  are  very  short,  as  where  Buckingham 
is  led  to  execution,  or  two  citizens  are  discussing  Richard's 
protectorate,  or  a  scrivener  appears  with  the  indictment  of 
Hastings.  Richard  is  absent  from  only  two  scenes  where  there 
is  any  action,  the  murder  of  Clarence  and  the  testing  of  Hast- 

182  The  two  hours'  traffic  of  out  stage. 

Romeo  and  Juliet,  Prologue. 
May  see  away  their  shilling 
Richly  in  two  short  hours. 

Henry  the  Eighth,  Prologue. 

But  in  the  Induction  to  Bartholomew  Fair,  the  length  of  fhe  performance 
is  given  as  "  two  and  a  half  hours  and  somewhat  more." 


58 

ings.133  In  other  words,  there  is  here  opportunity  for  the  de- 
velopment of  the  "  star."  Besides,  in  no  play  up  to  that  time 
had  such  opportunity  been  given  for  the  display  of  a  variety 
of  emotions  and  capabilities  in  the  actor.  The  part  of  Richard 
the  Third  is  an  especially  many  sided  one ;  he  is  the  scheming 
villain,  the  injured  patriot,  the  king  par  excellence,  the  lover, 
a  consummate  actor.  He  is  seen  in  playful  banter  with  the 
little  princes,  in  the  heroic  encounter,  as  leader  of  an  army,  and 
in  the  last  moments  of  a  tragic  death.  This  would  explain 
the  popularity  of  "  Richard  the  Third  "  with  actors  as  well  as 
audiences  from  the  days  of  Burbage  to  the  present  time. 

It  is  easy  to  imagine  the  attractiveness  of  this  play  to  audi- 
ences of  Shakespeare's  time.  The  great  figure  of  Richard, 
grotesque,  imminent  in  every  action,  varying  at  every  turn, 
is  surrounded  by  a  multitude  of  characters  helplessly  involved 
in  the  net-work  of  his  machinations — the  demonic  Margaret, 
half  Fury,  half  prophetess,  her  awful  presence  giving  the  note 
of  fate  fulness  to  these  scenes  in  the  fortunes  of  the  houses  of 
York  and  Lancaster,  the  weeping  women,  suggestive  of  the 
ancient  Chorus,  the  enthusiastic,  wrong-headed  Buckingham, 
the  obtusely  loyal  Hastings,  the  precocious  princes,  and  the 
simple,  wondering  children  of  Clarence.  These  in  their  suc- 
cession and  combination  give  scenes  of  constantly  shifting 
"  values."  How  much  Shakespeare  has  done  in  the  creation 
of  this  world  of  interacting  natures  surrounding  this  central 
figure  could  be  readily  appreciated  by  an  audience  which  had 
seen  the  old  play  of  "  The  True  Tragedy,"  where  Richard's 
schemes  are  planned  with  a  certain  commonness  and  vulgarity 
far  removed  from  the  sardonic,  yet  always  kingly  character  of 
Shakespeare's  protagonist;  Margaret's  awful  curses  are  in  no 
measure  suggested  by  the  mournful  complainings  of  Anne  and 
Elizabeth;  and  the  children,  so  effectively  introduced  in  this 
play,  are  mere  little  puppets  with  large  speeches.  For  Shake- 
speare's transformations  in  these  respects,  I  believe,  are 
what  would  most  impress  the  audience  who  went  to  see  "  Rich- 
ard the  Third  "  at  The  Theatre  in  1594  and  1595. 

IM  Richard  speaks  1161  lines,  a  greater  number  than  any  other  character 
in  Shakespeare's  plays,  except  Hamlet. 


59 

Above  all,  the  play  is  typically  Elizabethan.  As  has  been 
seen,  it  shows  in  its  construction  and  presentation  a  mingling 
of  the  classical  and  medieval  together  with  a  regard  for  the 
current  theatrical  fashions,  which  mark  it  as  typical  of  the 
plays  on  the  stage  during  the  last  years  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  At  the  same  time,  in  its  emphasis  upon  the  devel- 
opment of  character  rather  than  upon  action,  it  looks  forward 
to  the  great  tragedies  of  the  next  decade. 


Ill 

RICHARD  THE  THIRD  AND  THE  DRAMA  OF  THE  RESTORATION 

The  chronicle  play  during  the  Restoration — Characteristics  of  the  heroic 
play — "  The  English  Princess  " — The  character  of  Richard  the  Third  in  this 
play — Betterton  as  Richard — Popularity  of  "  The  English  Princess  " — 
Changes  in  stage  conditions  during  this  period — Women  on  the  stage — 
Scenery — Music — Costume — Importance  of  the  period. 

Although  with  the  opening  of  the  theatres  after  the  Res- 
toration numerous  plays  of  Shakespeare  were  revived,1  either 
in  their  original  or  in  an  altered  form,  no  record  has  been 
discovered  of  a  performance  of  Shakespeare's  "  Richard  the 
Third  "  until  the  beginning  of  the  next  century,2  and  then  in 
a  revised  form,  and  no  performance  of  the  Shakespearian 
form  occurs  for  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  years.3 
During  this  period,  however,  between  1660  and  1700,  the 
character  of  Richard  the  Third  figured  on  the  stage  in  other 
plays,  namely,  "  Henry  the  Sixth,  The  Second  Part,  or  The 
Misery  of  Civil  War,"  by  John  Crowne  (1681),  and  "The 
English  Princess,  or  The  Death  of  Richard  the  Third,"  by 
John  Caryl4  (1667),  the  latter  of  which  presents  a  treatment 
of  the  subject  which  influenced  the  later  history  of  the  Shake- 
spearian play.  Before  examining  these  plays,  some  brief 
account  should  be  given  of  the  chronicle  play  after  1594  in 
order  to  exhibit  the  influences  which  resulted  in  the  form  which 
we  meet  at  this  time. 

1  For  a  list  of  these  alterations  and  revisions  for  the  fifty  years  following 
the  Restoration,  see  Lounsbury,  Shakespeare  as  a  Dramatic  Artist,  page 
302  note. 

3 "  I  do  not  find  that  this  play  which  was  so  popular  in  Shakespeare's 
time,  was  performed  from  the  time  of  the  Restoration  to  the  end  of  the 
last  century."  Malone,  Historical  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of 
the  English  Stage  (1790).  London,  1803,  pages  347-8. 

8  In   1821,  Macready's  attempt  to  revive  the  original  form. 

*  Written  variously  as  Caryll  and  Carroll. 

60 


61 

During  the  early  years  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  popu- 
larity of  the  chronicle  play  persisted,  but  after  the  succession 
of  Charles  the  First,  plays  founded  on  the  English  chronicles 
became  more  and  more  rare,  and  the  history  of  this  dramatic 
form  may  be  said  to  close  with  Ford's  "  Perkin  Warbeck," 
acted  at  The  Phoenix  in  1633.  This  play  is  of  some  special 
interest  here  as  dealing  remotely  with  the  subject  of  Richard 
the  Third,  and  as  being  of  a  quality  to  rank  it  among  the  few 
great  plays  of  the  class  of  Shakespeare's  epic  histories.5  This, 
with  Samuel  Rowley's  "  Richard  the  Third  or  the  English 
Prophet"  (i623),6  of  which  we  know  nothing,  exhibits  the 
subject  of  Richard  the  Third  among  the  very  last  represen- 
tatives in  this  period  of  the  English  chronicle  play. 

The  period  succeeding  the  restoration  of  the  Stuarts  upon 
the  throne  was  not  a  time  in  which  this  form  of  the  drama 
would  be  likely  to  attain  popularity.  Aside  from  the  unac- 
ceptableness  of  plays  dealing  with  the  fall  of  English  monarchs, 
the  absence  of  national  enthusiasm,  the  total  separation  of  the 
ideals  and  practices  of  the  Court  from  those  of  the  great  mass 
of  the  people,  the  lack  of  connection  or  sympathy  between  the 
stage  and  the  general  public,  would  account  for  the  failure  of 
interest  in  national  themes.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  "  the 
literature  of  the  stage  was  not  only  out  of  sympathy  with  the 
opinions  and  sentiments  of  the  people  at  large,  but  was  in  part 
both  intended  and  received  as  an  insult  to  them."  The  drama 
of  the  time  appealed  to  and  was  fostered  entirely  by  a  small 
and  non-representative  class,  the  Court,  and,  in  addition,  its 
models,  form  and  themes  were  highly  "  Frenchified."7 

Plays  based  really  or  nominally  on  the  English  chronicles 
number  about  a  dozen  during  the  years  between  the  Restora- 
tion and  the  beginning  of  the  next  century.  To  these  must 
be  added,  however,  the  revivals  and  alterations  of  history  plays 
from  the  older  drama,  that  now  began  to  appear.8  The  first 

5F.  E.  Schelling:  The  English  Chronicle  Play,  page  265. 
8  Fleay,  History  of  the  London  Stage,  page  30,  says  it  was  played  at  The 
Fortune  by  the  Palsgrave  Men. 
T  See  Chase,  The  English  Heroic  Play,  page  193- 
8  Macbeth,    according   to    Downes'   Roscius   Anglicanus,   was    given    "  as 


62 

original  history  plays  of  the  period  seem  to  have  been  the  Earl 
of  Orrery's  "  Henry  the  Fifth  "  in  1664,  "  The  Black  Prince  " 
by  the  same  author  in  1667,  and  Caryl's  "  The  English 
Princess  "  in  the  same  year.  Two  plays  based  on  the  popular 
story  of  King  Edgar,  one  by  Edward  Ravenscroft  in  1677, 
and  the  other  by  Thomas  Rymer  in  1678,°  and  a  group  of 
plays  by  John  Banks  dealing  with  the  events  of  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,10  complete  the  list  until  the  appearance,  late  in  the 
nineties,  of  Charles  Hopkins'  "  Boadicea "  and  Mrs.  Pix' 
"  Queen  Catherine,  or  The  Ruins  of  Love,"  unless  Dryden's 
opera,  "Arthur,"  may  be  included  here.  All  of  the  histories 
of  this  period,  except  those  by  Banks,11  are  of  the  prevalent 
type  of  serious  drama,  i.  e.,  heroic  plays.  It  remains,  there- 
fore, to  show  the  general  character  of  this  type  as  related  to 
the  histories  of  the  former  age. 

The  heroic  play12  has  certain  affiliations  with  the  "  virtu  " 
play  so  called,  such  as  Marlowe's  "  Tamburlaine,"  or  "  Faus- 

Shakespeare  wrote  it"  in  1663  at  the  Duke's  Theatre,  and  according  to  the 
same  authority  Lear  was  played  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  between  1662  and 
1665.  In  1667,  Henry  the  Fourth  was  revived.  Macbeth  appeared  as  an 
opera,  altered  by  D'Avenant,  in  1692,  and  Nahum  Tate  produced  his  re- 
visions of  Richard  the  Second  and  Lear  in  1681.  In  this  same  year  also, 
Henry  the  Sixth,  very  much  altered  by  Crowne,  appeared,  and  in  1682 
D'Urfey's  revision  of  Cymbeline  as  The  Fatal  Wager. 

*  King  Edgar  and  Alfrida  and  Edgar  or  the  English  Monarch. 

10  Virtue  Betrayed,  or  Anna  Bullen,  1682,  at  Dorset  Garden,  The  Un- 
happy Favorite,  or  The  Earl  of  Essex,  1682,  at  the  Theatre  Royal,  and  in 
1684,  The  Island  Queens,  or  The  Death  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scotland,  not 
acted  until  1704,  at  Drury  Lane,  with  the  title  Albion  Queens,  and 
The  Innocent  Usurper,  or  The  Death  of  Lady  Jane  Grey,  which  was  not  acted. 

u  Banks'  plays  have  looser  structure  and  use  blank  verse,  but  in  the 
characters  and  sentiments  differ  little  from  the  heroic  plays.  The  altera- 
tions of  Shakespeare's  plays  kept  something  like  the  outward  form  and 
the  blank  verse  of  the  originals. 

12  For  the  relation  of  the  heroic  play  to  the  preceding  drama,  see  espe- 
cially, J.  W.  Tupper,  The  Relation  of  the  Heroic  Play  to  the  Romances  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher;  Publications  of  Modern  Language  Association^ 
Sep.,  1905 ;  W.  J.  Courthope,  History  of  English  Poetry,  Vol.  IV,  page 
404 ;  A.  H.  Thorndike,  The  influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on  Shake- 
speare, Introduction  to  the  edition  of  The  Maid's  Tragedy  and  Philaster 
in  the  Belle  Lettre  Series,  and  Tragedy,  Chapter  VIII. 


63 

tus,"  or  Shakespeare's  "Richard  the  Third."  In  both  we 
have  the  desire  to  attain  great  things,  scorn  for  the  impossible, 
utter  self-confidence,  and  the  "  high  astounding  "  eloquence  of 
the  self-assertive  hero.  Furthermore,  through,  the  influence  of 
the  French  romances  and  of  the  romantic  plays  of  the  preced- 
ing age,  especially  those  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  whose 
plays  were  popular  on  the  Restoration  stage,  the  "  virtu " 
play  became  modified  from  martial  and  political  themes,  and 
from  a  play  in  which  love  played  only  a  subordinate  part,  to 
one  in  which  the  sentiment  of  love  was  the  predominating 
motive  and  interest.  The  hero,  as  in  the  chronicle  play,  was 
a  person  of  royal  or  noble  birth,  but  as  Rymer  says  of  the 
hero  of  his  "  Edgar," 

Unking'd,  in  Love,  we  represent  him  here.13 

The  heroic  play,  sui  generis,  is  professedly  a  history  play,  but 
even  in  the  time  of  its  greatest  vogue  we  find  few  themes  taken 
from  English  history.  The  scenes,  as  in  the  romances,  are 
remote  in  place,  as  well  as  in  time.  In  contradistinction  to  the 
loose  epic  structure,  with  the  large  number  of  characters,  and 
the  introduction  of  comic  matter,  which  characterized  the 
chronicles  generally,  and  in  accordance  with  the  stricter  dra- 
matic structure  of  the  romantic  plays,  the  heroic  play  developed 
a  tolerably  consistent  observance  of  the  unities,  a  suppression 
of  all  comic  elements  and  a  reduction  of  the  number  of  char- 
acters. Yet,  instead  of  presenting  in  this  smaller  compass  the 
interaction  and  complexities  of  character,  introspection  and 
passion  find  no  place  here,  but  the  "  tendency  is  for  each  char- 
acter to  become  the  exponent  and  champion  of  a  single  phase, 
a  single  idea."14  This  impression  is  strengthened  by  the 
further  rigidity  brought  about  by  the  change  from  the  more 
varied  cadences  of  blank  verse  to  the  fixed  rhythm  of  the 
couplet. 

So  far  as  the  history  of  the  chronicle  play  is  concerned, 
the  most  significant  characteristic  of  these  heroic  plays  is  their 
treatment  of  historical  sources.  The  writer  used  the  names 

18  Prologue. 

14  Chase,  op.  cit.,  pages  54  and  103. 


64 

of  historical  personages  and  kept  to  historical  events  in  the 
merest  outline,  but  that  is  all.  Love  is  the  whole  concern  and 
history  is  "  twisted  "  to  make  it  so,  patriotism  plays  no  part 
in  motive  and  little  in  expression,  war  is  kept  in  the  back- 
ground as  a  point  of  reference  for  the  lover,  who  engages  in  it 
chiefly  to  remove  the  obstacles  which  stand  in  the  way  of  his 
obtaining  the  object  of  his  desire.  If  in  the  course  of  this  a 
number  of  persons  are  killed,  the  play  is  called  a  tragedy, 
irrespective  of  a  happy  ending.15  It  is  seen,  therefore,  that  the 
history  play  became  in  this  period  quite  another  thing  in  spirit 
and  form,  far  removed  from  the  plays  contemporary  with 
Shakespeare's  "  Richard  the  Third." 

In  the  small  number  of  these  heroic  histories  between  the 
years  of  1660  and  1700,  Richard  the  Third  is  the  hero  of  one 
of  the  most  successful,  "  The  English  Princess,  or  The  Death 
of  Richard  the  Third."  The  theme  is  developed  from  Rich- 
ard's solicitation  of  the  Queen  for  her  daughter  Elizabeth,  the 
English  Princess.  Richmond  is  the  rival  suitor,  secondarily 
the  liberator  of  England.  To  illustrate  the  form  which  the 
subject  took  at  this  time,  a  short  resume  of  the  play  is  given. 

Act  I. — The  play  opens  just  before  the  battle  of  Bos  worth. 
Richard  is  on  his  way  to  meet  Richmond.  But  the  first  con- 
cern of  Richard,  for  political  and  personal  reasons,  is  to  win 
Elizabeth,  the  daughter  of  Edward  the  Fourth,  for  his  wife. 
Elizabeth  vows  herself  plighted,  both  by  love  and  honor,  to 
Richmond. 

Act  II. — Lord  Stanley's  treachery  to  Richard  and  his  adher- 
ence to  Richmond  become  apparent.  Chariot,  the  page  of 
Richmond,  furthers  the  communication  between  the  lovers. 

Act  III. — The  King's  further  attempts  to  win  Elizabeth  are 
unsuccessful,  and  she  is  condemned  to  die  unless  she  yields. 
The  scene  changes  to  the  camp  of  Richmond.  The  Prior  of 
Litchfield  fortells  his  success. 

Act  IV. — On  the  night  before  the  battle  Richmond  visits 
Elizabeth  with  Stanley  and  begs  to  die  in  her  place,  but  she 
utterly  refuses  the  sacrifice.  Richard  appears  walking  in  his 
sleep,  surrounded  by  the  ghosts  of  those  whom  he  has  slain. 

18  Chase,  op  cit.,  pages  20-1. 


65 


ym  —  The  day  of  the  battle.  Elizabeth  escapes  to  a 
cloister  in  the  dress  of  the  page,  Chariot.  Sir  William  Stan- 
ley, disguised  as  Richmond,  meets  Richard  and  is  about  to 
fight  with  him,  when  Richmond  appears.  They  fight  and 
Richard  falls.16  The  play  closes  with  the  revelation  of  the 
identity  of  Chariot  as  the  daughter  of  a  French  count,  the  ap- 
pearance of  Elizabeth  and  the  crowning  of  Richmond. 

The  author  gives  his  sources  in  the  prologue  as  "  plain 
Holinshead  and  down-right  Stowe,"  but  it  is  seen  that  great 
liberties  have  been  taken  with  these  sources  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  the  heroic  plot.  This  offers  all  the  conventional 
obstacles  of  the  typical  heroic  play,  the  rivals  both  to  hero  and 
to  heroine,  and  the  strong  opposing  force  of  the  tyrant  king. 
The  prime  interest  is  heroic  love,  the  characters  present  the 
well-known  types,  the  lover  of  noble  birth,  splendid  in  valor, 
extravagant  in  love  ;  the  heroine  strictly  regardful  of  the  con- 
ventionalities, prating  always  of  love  and  honor  ;  the  generous 
rival  in  Sir  William  Stanley;  the  love-lorn  maiden  in  Chariot. 
Richard,  quite  at  variance  with  the  complexity  of  Shakespeare's 
conception,  is  here  a  character  of  one  idea,  the  typically  ambi- 
tious king-villain.  Some  violence  is  done  to  the  character  of 
Queen  Elizabeth  to  make  her  fill  the  part  of  the  evil-minded 
woman  lost  to  all  sense  of  honor,  bent  only  on  ambition.  The 
sentiments  present  the  familiar  themes  of  love  and  honor,  the 
former  expressed  in  the  familiar  terms  of  "  poison  in  the 
blood,"  and  "  raging  fire."  The  villain's  theme  is  ambition. 
It  is  this  preference  of  ambition  to  love  that  makes  Richard 
the  villain  in  distinction  to  Richmond,  who  prefers  love  to 
ambition;  otherwise  their  characters  are  not  sharply  differ- 
entiated. Loyalty  to  the  monarchical  idea  finds  expression 
from  time  to  time,  the  patriotic  note  is  slight,  although  the 
Prologue  and  Epilogue  point  to  a  patriotic  motive  in  the  under- 
taking.17 The  tragic  note  is  hardly  perceptible.  The  villain 

18  Compare  Rymer's  canon  in  Tragedies  of  the  Last  Age,  "  If  I  mistake 
not,  in  Poetry  no  woman  is  to  kill  a  man,  .  .  .  nor  is  a  Servant  to 
kill  the  Master,  nor  a  Private  Man,  much  less  a  Subject  to  kill  a  king, 
nor  on  the  contrary." 

"Greece,  the  first  Mistress  of  the  Tragic  Muse, 
To  grace  her  Stage  did  her  own  Heroes  chuse  ; 
6 


66 

is  punished,  but  his  fate  awakens  no  pity,  nor  does  his  over- 
throw seem  of  more  significance  than  denoting  his  lack  of  suc- 
cess in  love.  The  national  concern  is  almost  unfelt. 

Richard's  ugliness  is  touched  upon,  but  only  vaguely.  He 
is  called  "  this  monster/''18  and  his  "  ill-shape  "19  is  spoken  of, 
but  neither  of  these  in  terms  that  suggest  any  great  physical 
deformity.  He  rather  stands  abstractly  for  the  ugliness  of 
the  tyrant,  but  probably  in  his  character  as  a  king,  in  accord 
with  orthodox  heroic  canons,20  some  measure  of  dignity  above 
a  common  villain  was  given  him.  All  elements  of  the  comic 
in  connection  with  his  character,  either  in  the  suggestion  of 
the  grotesque  or  in  the  situation,  are  severely  suppressed. 

Their  pens  adorn'd  their  Native   Swords;   and  thus 

What  was  not  Grecian  past  for  Barbarous. 

On  us  our  Country  the  same  duty  lays, 

And   English  Wit  should   English   Valour   raise. 

Why  should  our  Land  to  any  Land  submit 

In  choice  of  heroes  or  in  height  of  wit? 

This  made  him  write,  who  never  writ  till  now, 

Only  to  show  what  better  pens  should  do. 

And  for  his  pains  he  hopes  he  shall  be  thought 

(Though  a  bad  Poet)  a  good  Patriot.  Prologue. 

Richard  is  dead ;  and  now  begins  your  Reign : 

Let  not  the  Tyrant  live  in  you  again, 

For  though  one  Tyrant  be  a  Nation's  Curse, 

Yet  Commonwealths  of  Tyrants  are  much  worse, 

Their  name  is  Legion :  And  a  Rump  (you  know) 

In  Cruelty  all  Richards  does  outgo.  Epilogue. 

Also  compare  the  title  motto  in  the  Quarto  of  1674. 

Nee  minnimum  meruere  decus  vestigia  Graeca 
Aussi  deserere,  et  laudare  domestica  facta. 

Horat.  de  Art.  Poet. 
"Act  I,  Scene  4. 
"Act  II,  Scene  3. 

80 "  Though  it  is  not  necessary  that  all  heroes  should  be  Kings,  yet  un- 
doubtedly all  crown'd  heads,  by  Poetical  right  are  Heroes.  This  Character 
is  a  flower,  a  prerogative,  so  certain,  so  indispensably  annexed  to  the 
Crown,  as  by  no  Poet,  or  Parliament  of  poets,  ever  to  be  invaded." 
Rymer,  Tragedies  of  the  Last  Age,  page  61.  Quoted  by  Chase,  op.-  c»f., 
page  29. 


G7 

Richard  is  sceptical,  as  the  typical  heroic  villain.     Thus  he 
says: 

'Tis  fear  makes  Gods  above,  and  Kings  below.21 

To  reassure  himself,  he  scoffs: 

There  are  no  ghosts,  nor  ever  were 
But  in  the  tales  of  Priests,  or  Womens  Fear.23 

He  dies  exclaiming: 

Since  I  must  lose  my  Throne,  I  only  crave, 
That  nothing  may  be  found  beyond  the  Grave.23 

Genest  says  that  in  this  play  "  nothing  is  taken  from  Shake- 
speare."24 The  end  of  the  play  seems  generally  modelled  on 
the  older  one,  especially  the  ghost  scene,  though  here  greatly 
simplified  by  representing  the  ghosts  as  appearing  to  Richard 
alone.  Such  imitation,  however,  is  only  barely  possible,  as 
the  suggestion  stands  in  the  chronicles,  and  the  representation 
of  ghosts  on  the  stage  at  this  time  was  as  common  as  in  the 
time  of  Elizabeth.  The  battle  or  any  portion  of  it  seemed 
out  of  favor  in  the  heroic  play,  so  the  battle  of  Bos  worth 
Field  is  represented  only  by  the  duel  between  Richard  and 
Richmond. 

The  actor  of  the  heroic  Richard  was  Betterton,  the  greatest 
actor  of  his  age,  a  worthy  successor  of  the  first  Richard, 
Burbage,  and  like  him  inclining  to  the  quieter  delivery,  in  a 
time  when  bombast  and  bombastic  plays  were  in  vogue. 
Colley  Gibber,  in  his  "  Apology  "  gives  as  the  main  charac- 
teristic of  Betterton's  acting  the  power  "  to  keep  the  attention 
more  pleasingly  awake  by  a  temper'd  Spirit  than  by  meer 
Vehemence  of  Voice."25  Again  he  says,  "  Betterton  had  a 
Voice  of  that  kind  which  gave  more  Spirit  to  Terror  than  to 

21  Act  III,  Scene  i. 

22  Act  IV,  Scene  9. 

23  Act  V,  Scene  6. 

24  John  Genest,  Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage  from  1660  to  1830, 
Vol.  I,  page  73. 

25  An  Apology  for  the  Life  of  Colley  Cibber  by  Himself.    Edited  by  Robert 
W.  Lowe.     London,  1889.     Vol.  I,  pages  101-2. 


68 

softer  Passions;  of  more  strength  than  Melody."26  In  figure 
he  was  "  not  exceeding  middle  stature,  inclining  to  the  corpu- 
lent; of  a  serious  and  penetrating  Aspect;  his  Limbs  nearer 
the  Athletick  than  the  delicate  Proportion ;"  yet  he  had  "  a 
commanding  Mien  of  Majesty."27 

"  The  English  Princess  "  seems  to  have  been  a  successful 
play,  although  opinions  differed  as  to  its  excellence.  Downes, 
the  prompter,  writes  of  it: 

"  Richard  the  Third,  or  the  English  Princess,  wrote  by  Mr.  Carrol  was 
excellently  well  acted  in  every  Part;  chiefly  King  Richard,  by  Mr.  Better- 
ton  ;  Duke  of  Richmond,  by  Mr.  Harris ;  Sir  William  Stanly,  by  Mr.  Smith, 
gained  them  Additional  Estimation,  and  the  Applause  from  the  Town,  as 
well  as  profit  to  the  whole  Company."2* 

Pepys  saw  the  play  when  it  was  given  on  March  7,  1667, 
and  characterizes  it  as  "  a  most  sad,  melancholy  play,  and 
pretty  good ;  but  nothing  eminent  in  it,  as  some  tragedys  are."29 
Genest  records  but  one  performance,  but  it  seems  to  have  been 
on  the  stage  later,  according  to  the  title-page  of  the  second 
Quarto  of  1674,  which  reads:  "As  it  is  now  acted  at  His 
Highness  the  Duke  of  York's  Theatre."  It  seems  even  to 
have  enjoyed  some  popularity,  for  I  find  references  in  the 
plays  of  the  season  which  seem  to  apply  to  this  "  Richard  the 
Third."  In  the  Epilogue  to  "The  Tempest,"  which  Pepys 
saw  on  November  7,  i667,30  that  year  is  represented  as  being 
unfortunate:31 

Gallants,   by   all   good   signs   it   does  appear 
That    sixty-seven's   a   very   damning  year, 
For  knaves  abroad,  and  for  ill  poets  here. 

**  Ditto,  page  116.  Anthony  Aston,  in  his  Lives  of  the  late  famous 
Actors  and  Actresses,  says  of  Betterton's  voice,  "  His  voice  was  low  and 
grumbling ;  yet  he  could  tune  it  by  an  artful  climax,  which  enforced  uni- 
versal attention  even  from  the  Fops  and  Orange-girls." 

27  Ditto,  page   117. 

28  Roscius  Anglicanus.      Facsimile  Reprint  of  the  Rare  Original  of  1708, 
by  Joseph  Knight.      London,  1886.      Page  27. 

29  The  Diary.      Edited  by  H.   B.   Wheatley.       London,   1895.      Vol.   VI, 
pages  200  and  201. 

"Ditto,  Vol.  VII,  page  176. 

81  Referring,  no  doubt,  to  the  two  edicts  of  suspension  of  performances 
issued  that  year. 


69 

"The  English  Princess"  had  been  given  at  the  Theatre  in 
Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  in  March  of  the  same  year,  and  it  is  prob- 
able that  the  reference  is  to  the  play  that  had  just  scored  a 
success.  Again  in  Banks'  "  Unhappy  Favorite,"  played  at  the 
Theatre  Royal  in  1682,  Burleigh  is  called: 

Fourth  Richard  rather, 
Heir  to  the  Third  in  Magnanimity, 
In   Person,   Courage,  Wit,   and   Bravery  all, 
But  to  his  vices  none,  nor  to  his  End 
I  hope.32 

But  "  The  English  Princess  "  is  not  the  only  play  in  which 
the  figure  of  Richard  was  kept  upon  the  stage,  for  among  the 
alterations  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  which,  we  have  noted, 
began  to  appear  in  considerable  numbers  at  this  time,  John 
Crowne's  "  Henry  the  Sixth  the  Second  Part,  or  the  Misery 
of  Civil  War"  (1681),  presents  the  character  of  Richard  the 
Third,  and  quite  prominently.  Although  the  writer  says  of 
himself  in  the  Prologue : 

For  by  his  feeble  Skill  'tis  built  alone, 

The  Divine  Shakespeare  did  not  lay  one  stone, 

this  play  is  a  combination  of  the  Jack  Cade  scenes  of  the  sec- 
ond part  of  Shakespeare's  "  Henry  the  Sixth,"  with  the  lead- 
ing scenes  of  the  third  part,  together  with  certain  interpola- 
tions, such  as  the  scenes  dealing  with  Lady  Elinor  Butler,  an 
early  sweetheart  of  Edward  the  Fourth,  Warwick's  wooing 
of  Lady  Elizabeth  Grey  before  her  meeting  with  the  King 
and  his  subsequent  jealousy,  and  the  marriages  of  Edward, 
George  and  Prince  Edward.  The  great  Earl  Warwick  is  the 
hero  of  the  play,33  but  is  here  converted  into  a  sighing  lover, 

The  ghosts  of  poets  walk  within  this  place, 
And  haunt  us  actors  whereso'er  we  pass, 
In  visions  bloodier  than  King  Richard's  was. 

32  This  might  refer  to  Crowne's  Henry  the  Sixth.      Or,  since  later  in  the 
play,  we  have  the  line, 

Was  not  brave  Buckingham  for  less  Condemned? 

it  may  be  that  Banks  was  reading  Shakespeare,  as  Buckingham  does  not 
figure  in  either  of  these  plays. 

33  Acted  by  Betterton,  as  was  also  the  part  of  the  Duke  of  Gloucester. 
Genest,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  page  459. 


70 

hardly  to  be  torn  from  his  lady's  side  when  the  battle  opens. 
The  conception  of  Richard  in  this  play  is  coarser,  less  brood- 
ing, more  blatant,  and  he  is  even  more  a  villain  confessed  than 
in  Shakespeare.  The  soliloquies  giving  his  intentions  to  clear 
the  way  to  the  throne  by  murder,  seem  clearly  reminiscences 
of  "  Richard  the  Third ;"  and  here,  differing  from  "  The  Eng- 
lish Princess,"  he  is  reproached  with  his  ugliness  within  and 
without,  with  the  greatest  frequency  and  detail.  Edward  the 
Fourth's  speech, 

My  Horse,  my  Horse,  I  must  ride  for  a  Kingdom !  ** 

suggests  imitation  of  Richard's  noted  line.  The  appearance 
of  the  ghost  of  Richard  the  Second  to  Henry  as  he  sleeps,  fore- 
telling his  death,  and  of  the  spirit  who  sings  to  him,35  is 
typical  of  the  plays  of  the  time.  The  scenes  of  carnage,36 
depicted  with  sickening  detail,  exhibit  the  increased  possibili- 
ties of  stage  setting. 

Aside  from  furnishing  these  interesting  items  to  the  litera- 
ture of  the  subject,  the  staging  of  these  plays,  especially  of 
"  The  English  Princess,"  gives  some,  though  slight,  evidences 
of  the  changes  in  conditions  at  this  time.  These  changes  must 
be  considered  briefly.  In  this  connection,  the  work  of  Sir 
William  D'Avenant  is  of  importance.  In  1656  appeared 
"  The  Siege  of  Rhodes,  Made  a  Representation  by  the  art  of 
Prospective  in  Scenes  and  the  Story  sung  in  recitative  music." 
This  musical  play  or  opera,  marked  the  reopening  of  the  theatres 
and  introduced  several  novelties  on  the  stage.  The  two  most 
important  were  the  employment  of  movable  scenery  and  the 
appearance  of  women  as  performers.  From  this  time,  scenery 
became  an  important  feature  in  distinction  to  properties.  This 
is  felt  strongly  if  one  reads  a  play  of  the  Elizabethan  age 
where  the  properties  are  elaborate,  such  as  "  A  Looking  Glass 
for  London,"  and  compares  it  with  a  play  of  this  time,  such 
as  "  The  Indian  Queen."  The  employment  of  scenery  was 
most  extravagant  in  the  operas  which  were  now  in  vogue,  and 

"Act  III. 

35  Act  V,  Scene  5. 

30  Act  III,  Scene  2. 


71 

which  were  marked  from  the  very  beginning  by  elaborate 
"  machines  "  and  "  other  Diverting  Contrivances."  The  regu- 
lar drama  felt  the  influence  of  this  in  great  measure,  and 
Dryden's  plays,  to  take  a  notable  example,  seem  to  have  been 
elaborately  staged.  "  The  Indian  Queen  "  evoked  the  admira- 
tion of  both  Pepys37  and  Evelyn38  by  the  scenery  and  decora- 
tions,39 and  the  latter  also  speaks  of  "  The  Conquest  of  Gran- 
ada "  as  having  "  very  glorious  scenes  and  perspectives."40 

The  introduction   of   women   on  the   stage   of  the  public 
theatres  was  not  an  entirely  new  thing,  for  French  and  Italian 
women  had  played  in  English  theatres,41  but  the  first  English 
women  appeared  at  this  time,  and  were  officially  recognized 
as   members    of   the   theatrical    companies.     It   is    stated    in 
D'Avenant's  patent  thus :    "  Whereas  the  women's  parts  in 
plays  have  hitherto  been  acted  by  men,  at  which  some  have 
taken  offence,  we  do  give  leave  that  for  the  time  to  come  all 
women's  parts  be  acted  by  women."     This  license  from  the 
King  was  the  result  of  the  French  influence  exerted  during 
his  residence  abroad,  where  women  were  commonly  employed 
on  the  stage.     Pepys  and  Evelyn  both  speak  of  the  novelty 
of  seeing  these  actresses.     Pepys,  on  January  3,   1661,  saw 
"  The  Beggar's  Bush,"  and  notes  that  it  was  "  here  the  first 
time  that  I  ever  saw  women  come  upon  the  stage,"  and  many 
references  occur  later  to  the  actresses  he  saw.     From  one  of 
these  we  learn  that  Mary  Davis,  one  of  the  leading  actresses 
of  the  time,  took  part  in  "  The  English  Princess,"  and  at  the 
same  time  we  get  an  interesting  glimpse  of  a  stage  practice: 
"To    the    Duke's    playhouse,  .  .  .  and    saw    'The    English 
Princesse  or  Richard  the  Third ;  a  most  sad,  melancholy  play, 
and  pretty  good;  .  .  .  little  Mis.  Davis  did  dance  a  jig  after 

37  Diary,  January  27,  1664,  and  February  10,  1664. 

88  Diary,  February  5,  1664. 

88  The  Epilogue  refers  to  these  in  the  line, 

The  poet's  scenes,  nay,  more,  the  painter's  too. 

40  Quoted  in  Doran,  Annals  of  the  English  Stage,  page  177. 

41  See  Prynne,  Histriomastix ;  Downes,  Roscius  Anglicanus,  ed.      Joseph 
Knight,   Preface;   Fleay,  History  of  the  London  Stage,  page  22;   Gibber, 
Apology,  pages  90  and  no  note. 


72 

the  end  of  the  play,  and  there  telling  the  next  day's  play;  so 
that  it  come  by  force  only  to  please  the  company  to  see  her 
dance  in  boy's  clothes."42  From  this  it  is  seen  that  she  prob- 
ably played  the  part  of  Chariot.  Who  the  other  women  in 
the  play  were  does  not  appear  in  any  of  the  notices  of  it,  but 
it  may  be  conjectured  that  Mrs.  Betterton,  then  in  the  height 
of  her  powers  and  acting  similar  parts  in  other  plays,  probably 
took  the  part  of  Elizabeth  to  her  husband's  Richard. 

In  general  stage  arrangement  this  period  was  a  time  of 
transition  from  the  older  non-scenic  "  platform "  stage  to  the 
present  "  picture  "  stage  with  scenery.  Front  curtains  were 
first  introduced  into  the  public  theatres  at  this  time.  The  stage 
projecting  into  the  auditorium  was  retained  until  the  end  of 
the  century;  and  much  of  the  action  took  place  on  the  pro- 
scenium stage  because  of  the  necessity,  with  the  poor  facilities 
for  lightning,  of  keeping  in  the  "  focus."  But  with  the  intro- 
duction of  scenery,  entrances  were  made  by  doors  opening  on 
the  forward  part  of  the  proscenium,43  or  by  the  "  wings,"  while 
the  balcony  disappeared,  except  the  portions  over  the  opposite 
proscenium  doors.44  With  a  stage  that  projected  into  the  pit 
and  had  a  curtain  in  front  of  the  scenery,  some  of  the  scenes 
in  "  The  English  Princess  "  would  naturally  become  changed 
in  their  treatment  when  compared  with  similar  ones  in  the 
Elizabethan  play.  This  comes  out  especially  in  the  last  act. 
Here  the  scenes  in  the  two  camps  are  given  in  succession  rather 
than  in  coincidence,  as  now  the  front  curtain  could  be  dropped 
and  a  change  of  scene  take  place  quickly.  As  a  natural  out- 
come of  this,  the  ghosts  appear  only  to  Richard. 

In  "  The  English  Princess  "  we  have  few  indications  of  the 
elaborate  staging  which  characterized  the  serious  dramatic 
efforts  of  the  day.  There  is  here  a  simplicity  which  suggests 
the  pseudo-classical  French  plays  of  the  period.  Many  of  the 

42  Diary,  ed.  Wheatley,  Vol.  VI,  page  200-1. 

"English  Princess,  Act  IV,  Scene  8,  Catesby  and  Ratcliffe  enter  at  one 
of  the  doors  before  the  curtain,  Lovell  at  the  other  door. 

44  On  the  history  of  the  proscenium  doors  and  the  balconies,  see  W.  J. 
Lawrence,  A  Forgotten  Stage  Conventionality.  Anglia,  Vol.  28  (1903). 
Also  on  the  relation  of  the  Restoration  stage  to  the  earlier  form,  see  V.  E. 
Albright,  A  Typical  Shaksperian  Stage:  The  Outer-Inner  Stage. 


73 

scenes  take  place  in  an  open  space  with  a  background  of  build- 
ings to  represent  the  royal  "  lodgings,"  such  a  scene  as  appears 
in  many  of  the  illustrations  of  the  French  stage.45  Most  of 
the  other  scenes  are  placed  before  the  tent  of  either  Richard  or 
Richmond.  The  change  of  scene  from  one  to  the  other  is 
frequent. 

It  was  at  this  time  that  music  took  a  permanent  and  impor- 
tant place  in  the  theatrical  performance.  The  opera  was  a 
new  and  popular  entertainment,  and  the  song  was  an  inevitable 
element  even  in  serious  plays.  In  "  Historia  Histrionica " 
(1699),  it  is  said,  "All  this  while  play-house  music  improved 
yearly,  and  is  arrived  at  greater  perfection  than  ever  I  knew 
it."46  Pepys  speaks  enthusiastically  of  the  "  wind  music " 
which  he  heard  at  a,  performance  of  "  The  Virgin  Martyr."47 
George  Hogarth,  in  "Memoirs  of  the  Opera"  (1851),  says: 

"  A  regular  band  of  musicians  was  placed  in  the  orchestra,  who  between 
the  acts,  performed  pieces  of  music  composed  for  that  purpose  and  called 
act-tunes ;  and  also  accompanied  the  vocal  music  sung  on  the  stage,  and 
played  the  music  of  the  dances.  .  .  .  The  most  favorite  music  was  that 
which  was  heard  in  the  dramatic  pieces  of  the  day ;  and  to  sing  and  play 
the  songs,  dances,  and  act-tunes  of  the  theatres  became  a  general  amuse- 
ment in  fashionable  society."  ** 

We  find  the  "  act-tune "  introduced  in  "  The  English 
Princess  " — here  it  seems  most  inappropriately — to  meet  the 
popular  taste.  From  the  stage  directions  of  D'Avenant's 
alteration  of  "  The  Tempest,"49  we  learn  that  the  orchestra  is 
placed  between  the  pit  and  the  stage,  instead  of  in  a  "  box  " 
as  in  the  Elizabethan  theatre.  Pepys  mentions  this  when  he 
first  visited  Killigrew's  theatre  in  Drury  Lane,  and  found 
that  "  the  musique  being  below,  and  most  of  it  sounding  under 
the  very  stage,  there  is  no  hearing  of  the  basses  at  all,  nor 
very  well  of  the  trebles."50 

"See  Mantzius,  History  of  Theatric  Art. 

46  By  James  Wright.  Quoted  in  Chase,  The  English  Heroic  Play,  page 
12,  note  i. 

"Diary,  ed.  Wheatley,  Vol.  VII,  page  324.      Also  Vol.  VIII,  page  320. 

48  Quoted  by  Chase,  op.  cit.,  page  u. 

"Act  I,  Scene   i. 

60  Diary,  May  8,  1663.  See  also  article  cited  above,  Music  in  the  Eliza- 
bethan Theatre,  by  W.  J.  Lawrence. 


74 

The  Richard  of  this  play  probably  appeared  in  the  dress  of 
the  day,  with  periwig,  and,  as  was  the  fashion  for  heroic 
characters,  with  a  long  plume  on  his  head,61  but  anachronism 
of  dress  caused  no  greater  offence  than  in  the  preceding  age. 
It  had  become  the  fashion  at  this  time,  a  consequence  of  the 
interest  of  the  Court  in  the  theatre,  for  the  King  and  nobles 
to  allow  their  coronation  suits  to  be  used  for  kingly  parts. 
Downes  gives  several  instances  of  this.  Thus,  in  speaking  of 
Orrery's  "  Henry  the  Fifth,"  he  says,  "  This  play  was  splen- 
didly Cloath'd:  The  King  in  the  Duke  of  York's  Coronation 
Suit :  Owen  Tudor  in  King  Charle's :  Duke  of  Burgundy,  in 
the  Lord  of  Oxfords,  and  the  rest  all  new."52  Again,  in  re- 
gard to  D'Avenant's  "  Love  and  Honor,"  "  This  play  was 
Richly  Cloath'd;  The  King  giving  Mr.  Betterton  his  Corona- 
tion Suit,  in  which  he  acted  the  Part  of  Prince  Alvaro;  The 
Duke  of  York  giving  Mr.  Harris  his,  who  did  Prince  Pros- 
pero ;  And  my  Lord  of  Oxford  gave  Mr.  Joseph  his,  who  did 
Lionel  the  Duke  of  Parma's  Son."63  In  regard  to  other  plays, 
he  speaks  of  the  great  expense  of  "  cloathing  "  them,54  and  of 
the  fine  performances  of  revived  plays  with  new  costumes  and 
scenes,  as  in  the  case  of  "  Henry  the  Eighth."66  The  tradi- 
tion of  Richard's  fondness  for  rich  costumes  was,  therefore, 
at  this  time,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  preserved. 

The  changes,  then,  that  had  been  effected  in  the  handling 
of  the  subject  of  Richard  the  Third  were  hardly  greater  than 
those  that  had  been  developing  in  the  presentation  of  it  upon 
the  stage.  With  a  front  curtain,  movable  scenery,  music  be- 
tween the  acts  and  accompanying  the  songs,  the  parts  of  Eliza- 
beth and  the  Queen  played  by  women,  the  play  of  "  Richard 
the  Third  "  was  quite  changed  in  its  character  from  the  Eliza- 
bethan performance.  The  predominating  importance  of 

81  Fitzgerald,  A  New  History  of  the  English  Stage,  Vol.  I,  page  170. 

^Roscius  Anglicanus,  ed.  Knight,  pages  27-8. 

83  Ditto,  page  21.  In  The  Unhappy  Favorite,  acted  1685,  Mrs.  Barry  is 
said  to  have  played  Queen  Elizabeth  in  the  coronation  robes  of  the  queen 
of  James  the  Second.  She  had  before  been  presented  with  the  Queen's 
wedding  suit.  See  Genest,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  page  448. 

"Ditto,  pages  22,  26,  and  45. 

66  Ditto,  page  24. 


75 

Richard  in  the  scenes  has  shifted  to  the  heroine,  and  the  im- 
pressiveness  of  his  figure  has  given  place  to  the  artificiality, 
though  with  a  certain  clear-cut  simplicity  of  motive,  of  the 
protagonist  of  the  heroic  play. 

This  period  is  important  in  the  stage  history  of  "  Richard 
the  Third  "  because  of  its  advance  in  stage-craft,  because  of 
the  new  form  here  given  to  the  material,  which  modified  the 
later  conception  and  representation  of  "  Richard  the  Third," 
and  because  at  this  time  we  have  the  beginning  of  the  vogue 
for  Shakespearian  alterations,  which  prepared  the  way  for  the 
best  known  of  all  of  the  revisions  of  Shakespeare's  plays, 
Colley  Gibber's  "  Richard  the  Third." 


IV 
THE   GIBBER   VERSION   OF  RICHARD  THE  THIRD 

Popularity  of  alterations  of  Shakespeare's  plays  during  the  period — 
Colley  Gibber — Available  material — Detailed  examination  of  the  Gibber 
version — General  character  of  changes — Additions — Minor  changes,  the 
result  of  the  effort  to  modernize — Gibber's  conception  of  the  character  of 
Richard — Prevalent  method  of  acting — Theatrical  dress — Changes  in  gen- 
eral stage  effects — History  of  the  version  for  the  first  forty  years — Gibber 
as  Richard — Ryan — Quin — Popularity  of  the  play  after  1714. 

When  "  Richard  the  Third,"  after  its  half  century  of  eclipse, 
reappeared  upon  the  stage,  it  had  taken  on  a  form  as  different 
from  the  original  play  as  the  eighteenth  century  theatre  was 
from  that  of  the  Elizabethan  age.  By  1700,  tampering  with 
the  plays  of  Shakespeare  was  no  new  thing,  and  had  proved 
a  facile  and  ready  way  to  theatrical  success.  It  is  not  strange 
therefore,  that  this  play,  which  had  always  been  popular  and 
which  offered  exceptional  opportunities  to  the  actor,  should 
have  been  subjected  to  the  process.  The  motives  which  gov- 
erned these  alterations  have  been  fully  discussed  by  Professor 
Lounsbury  in  "  Shakespeare  as  a  Dramatic  Artist,"1  and  need 
not  be  taken  up  here,  except  to  note  that  in  the  case  of  this 
play,  contrary  to  the  general  practice,  the  tragic  ending  is 
kept,  love  is  not  made  a  leading  motive,  the  "  unities  "  are  no 
more  strictly  regarded  than  in  the  original,  and  while  the 
general  "  affects  "  of  the  play  are  heightened,  no  new  spec- 
tacle is  introduced.  The  success  of  this  revision  upon  the 
stage  may  be  a  direct  result  of  the  fact  that  this  play  suffered 
less  essential  change  from  the  original  than  any  other  revisions 
of  the  time.  And  this  is  the  more  remarkable,  because  this 
adaptation  came  at  the  height  of  the  disregard  for  Shakes- 
pearian tradition,  and  at  a  time  when  alterations  of  his  plays 

1  Chapter  VIII. 

76 


77 

were  constantly  appearing,2  and  when  the  heroic  play  with 
its  iron-bound  canons  had  just  passed  the  height  of  its  popu- 
larity and  might  be  expected  to  leave  more  patent  evidences 
of  its  influence. 

The  reviser  of  this  play,  Colley  Gibber,  was  an  actor  ex- 
cellent in  comedy  parts,  entirely  unfitted  for  tragedy,  and  one 
of  the  best-known  and  most  efficient  of  the  managers  of 
Drury  Lane.  His  ideas  of  stage  management  were  practical, 
philistine.  As  we  are  to  consider  him  mainly  as  an  adaptor, 
it  is  fortunate  for  us  that  he  has  left  a  full  account  of  his 
attitude  and  methods  in  his  entertaining  and  much  admired 
"  Apology."3  He  says  there :  "  Whenever  I  took  upon  me  to 
make  some  dormant  Play  of  an  old  Author  to  the  best  of 
my  Judgment  fitter  for  the  Stage,4  it  was  honestly  not  to  be 
idle  that  set  me  to  work;  as  a  good  Housewife  will  mend  old 
Linnen  when  she  has  not  better  Employment,"5  and  again 
in  speaking  of  his  compilation  of  "  the  Double  Gallant "  from 
several  plays,  he  says :  "  A  Cobbler  may  be  allow'd  to  be 
useful  though  he  is  not  famous:  And  I  hope  a  Man  is  not 
blameable  for  doing  a  little  Good,  tho'  he  cannot  do  as  much 
as  another."6  His  attitude,  while  perhaps  ostentatiously 

2  Many  of  these  appeared  just  at  this  time,  as  Lacey's  Sawney  the  Scott 
(The   Taming   of   the  Shrew},    1698,    Gildon's   Beauty    the  Best   Advocate 
(Measure    -for    Measure},    1700,    Lord    Lansdowne's    The    Jew    of    Malta 
(Merchant  of  Venice},   1701,  and  The  Comical  Gallant,  an   adaptation   of 
Merry     Wives    of     Windsor,     1702.        Ravenscroft's    alteration    of     Titus 
Andronicus,  which  was  first  acted  in   1686,  became  popular  in   1702.      In 
1700,   Betterton  revived  with   great  success  the  first  and  second  parts   of 
Henry  IV.      The  second  part  was  somewhat  altered,  scenes  from  Henry  V 
being  incorporated  with  it.      It  is  in  this  play  that  Colley  Gibber  made  one 
of  the  successes  of  the  day  in  the  character  of  Shallow.      Henry  VIII  was 
revived  by  Betterton  without  alteration  during  this  same  season. 

3  An  apology  for  the  Life  of  Colley  Cibber  by  Himself.    Edited  by  Robert 
W.    Lowe.       London,    1889.       Two    volumes.       Printed    from    the    second 
edition,  London,  1750. 

4  The  same  attitude  is  seen  in  the  Preface  to  Tate's  Lear  and  Dryden's 
Troilus  and  Cressida.     See  also,  for  others,  Lounsbury,  Shakespeare  as  a 
Dramatic  Artist,  page  301. 

5  Apology,  Vol.  I,  page  265. 
8  Ditto,  Vol.  33,  page  4. 


78 

"  honest,"  is  quite  free  from  any  academic  pose  or  enthusiasm 
for  reform,  and  nearer  to  that  of  a  conscientious  mechanic. 

The  material  available  at  the  time  that  Gibber  made  "  Rich- 
ard the  Third"  "fitter  for  the  stage"  was  abundant.  The 
last  Shakespeare  Folio  had  appeared  in  1685.  Dr-  Richard 
Dohse  however,  in  his  article  on  Gibber's  "  Richard  the 
Third  "7  has  shown  by  comparing  Gibber's  text  with  the 
Quartos  and  Folios,  that  he  used  chiefly  the  1664  Folio,  with 
the  addition  of  some  passages  found  only  in  the  first  Quarto. 
In  1681,  the  first  and  second  parts  of  Shakespeare's  "  Henry 
the  Sixth  "  were  revised  by  John  Crowne,  and  appeared  at 
Dorset  Garden,8  the  second  part  dealing,  as  we  have  seen,  with 
the  death  of  Henry  the  Sixth  and  the  early  career  of  Richard. 
"  The  English  Princess,"  as  we  saw,  appeared  in  1667  and  was 
played  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  with  great  success,  Richard  the 
Third  being  one  of  Betterton's  best  parts.  This  play  seems  to 
have  disappeared  from  the  boards  by  1700,  after  the  vogue  for 
the  rhyming  tragedy  was  over,  but  it  is  not  impossible  that 
Gibber  might  have  been  familiar  with  it.  About  1695-6  Gibber 
was  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  for  a  short  time  and  there  might 
have  seen  the  play  in  the  library  of  the  theatre,  or  he  may  have 
been  led  through  his  interest  in  the  subject  and  in  Betterton,  to 
have  read  either  the  Quarto  of  1667  or  of  1674.  The  pre- 
Restoration  plays  on  Richard  the  Third  were  probably  not 
easily  accessible  at  this  time.  Heywood's  "  Edward  the 
Fourth  "  had  not  appeared  since  1626,  and  of  Rowley's  "  Rich- 
ard the  Third  "  no  trace  is  found  except  the  Prologue  written 
for  it  by  Hey  wood  in  1632.  "  The  True  Tragedy  "  was  first 
reprinted  from  the  Quarto  of  1594  by  the  Shakespeare  Society 
in  1844. 

It  is  quite  conceivable  that  Gibber,  when  preparing  a  revision 
of  this  play,  should  have  consulted  the  chronicles.  We  find 
that  Caryl  went  to  these  sources  for  his  unhistorical  treatment 
of  Richard  the  Third,  giving  his  authorities,  as  "  plain  Hollins- 
head  and  downright  Stow."9  The  last  edition  of  Holinshed's 

1  Colley  Gibber's  Buhnenbearbeitung  von  Shakespear's  Richard  III. 
Banner  Beitrdge  zur  Anglistik,  Vol.  II,  Bohn,  1899. 

8  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  I. 

9  Prologue  to  The  English  Princess. 


79 

Chronicle  had  appeared  in  1586,  of  Hall's  in  1550,  of  Stowe's 
"  Annales  "  in  1631.  Graf  ton's  "  Chronicle  at  large  and  meere 
Historye  of  Affayres  of  Englande,"  a  compilation  of  the  work 
of  Hall  and  other  chroniclers,  had  appeared  in  its  last  edition 
in  1569,  followed  by  an  abridgment  edited  as  late  as  1572. 
Much  later,  Speed's  "  History  of  Great  Britaine  "  had  reached 
a  fourth  edition  in  1650,  with  an  epitome  in  1676. 

As  important  as  a  possible  source  must  be  accounted  "  The 
Mirror  for  Magistrates."  Issued  originally  by  William  Bald- 
win in  1559  with  Sackville's  famous  "  Induction,"  it  had  re- 
ceived frequent  additions  from  time  to  time  by  other  authors. 
In  1610,  Richard  Nicolls  issued  an  edition  in  which,  among 
other  additions,  he  substituted  a  poem  on  Richard  the  Third 
by  himself  in  place  of  Segar's  in  the  edition  of  1587.  This 
was  reissued,  or  revamped,  in  1619  and  again  in  i628.10 

In  1646,  Sir  George  Buck's  "  Life  and  Reign  of  Richard 
III  "  vigorously  defended  him  against  his  detractors.11  Be- 
sides, such  productions  as  "  The  Golden  Garland  of  Princely 
Delight,"  containing  a  song  on  "  The  Most  Cruel  Murder  of 
Edward  V,"  which  reached  its  thirteenth  edition  in  1690,  and 
innumerable  chap-books  were  constantly  throwing  into  poetic 
form  this  familiar  story. 

Turning  now  to  the  play,  let  us  examine  this  alteration  in 
regard  to  situations  and  stage  effects.12 

Act  I.  Scene  i. — The  first  act  is  taken  from  "  Henry  the 

10  See  W.  F.  Trench,  A  Mirror  for  Magistrates,  Its  origin  and  influence. 
Also  Haslewood,  The  Mirror  for  Magistrates.  In  Five  Parts.  London, 
1815. 

11 A  course  followed  by  Horace  Walpole  a  century  later  in  his  Historic 
Doubts  on  the  Life  and  Reign  of  King  Richard  III,  1768,  and  by  various 
later  writers.  The  latest  defense  of  Richard  is  by  Sir  Clements  R. 
Markham,  in  his  recently  published  volume  on  Richard  the  Third. 

12  The  references  apply  to  the  Works  of  Colley  Cibber  in  five  volumes, 
London,  1777.  Other  editions  appeared  in  1700,  1710,  1721,  1760,  etc. 
A  note  is  added  to  the  title  in  the  1779  edition  which  says:  "This  Tragedy 
being  admirably  altered  from  the  original,  by  that  excellent  judge  and 
ornament  of  the  stage,  Colley  Cibber,  we  shall  have  the  fewer  observations 
to  make  upon  it."  To  which  Genest  adds:  "This  note  shows  the  editor 
a  bigger  fool  than  Cibber  himself."  Quoted  by  Lounsbury,  op.  cit.,  page 
424. 


80 

Sixth,  Part  III,"  in  its  general  plot.  In  the  first  scene,  the 
events  of  the  battle  of  Tewkesbury  are  narrated  by  Tressel, 
thus  giving  the  audience  at  once  the  setting,  and  introducing 
Richard  as  on  his  way  from  the  battle-field  to  London.  Rich- 
ard appears,  and  in  a  soliloquy  tells  of  his  intention  to  murder 
Henry. 

Scene  2. — The  murder  of  Henry  is  given  practically  as  it 
is  in  Shakespeare. 

In  this  act  King  Henry's  monologue  is  from  "  Richard  the 
Second,"  Act  V,  Scene  I,  lines  38  to  45.  Richard's  Soliloquy 
is  from  "  Richard  the  Third,"  Act  I,  Scene  i,  with  three  lines 
from  "  Henry  the  Sixth,"  Act  III,  Scene  2,  lines  169  to  171, 
and  the  last  two  lines  and  concluding  couplet  by  Gibber.  In 
the  murder  scene  two  lines  from  the  scene  of  the  murder  of 
Clarence  (i,  4)  are  used.  The  monologue  of  Richard  at 
the  end  is  composed  of  lines  from  "  Henry  the  Sixth,"  Part 
III,  Act  V,  Scene  6,  from  "  Richard  the  Third,"  Act  I,  Scene 
i,  together  with  additions  by  Gibber.13  For  this  act  Gibber 
seems  to  have  used  Shakespeare  exclusively,  unless  the  idea 
of  showing  Henry  sleeping  was  suggested  by  Crowne's  similar 
scene  in  "  Henry  the  Sixth,  the  second  Part,  or  The  Misery 
of  Civil  War."  Whether  as  the  result  of  direct  influence  or 
not,14  Gibber,  in  beginning  the  story  of  Richard  the  Third 
with  the  battle  of  Tewkesbury  and  the  death  of  Henry  the 
Sixth  follows  Nicolls'  method  in  "  The  Mirror  for  Magis- 
trates,"15 and  the  last  act  throughout  is  surprisingly  close  to 
Nicoll's  story.  Thus,  after  Henry  recites  the  story  of  Ed- 
ward's death  on  the  field  at  Tewkesbury  and  his  own  death 

"For  details  such  as  these  I  am  indebted  largely  to  the  article  by  Dr. 
Dohse,  already  cited.  A  table  of  the  lines  added  by  Gibber  from  other 
plays  of  Shakespeare  may  be  found  on  page  604  of  the  New  Variorum 
edition  of  Richard  the  Third. 

14  Dr.  Dohse,  op.  cit.,  explains  the  introduction  of  this  act  in  the  play 
by  Gibber's  desire  to  make  Richard  the  Third  independent  of  the  plays 
dealing  with  Henry  the  Sixth. 

10  Th'  induction  to  my  storie  shall  begin 
Where  the  sixth  Henrie's  Edward  timeless  fell. 

Stanza  9. 


81 

in  the  Tower,  Richard,  in  Nicoll's  poem,  dilates  upon  the 
peaceful  times  to  follow: 

He  dead,  the  battles  fought  in  field  before, 

Were  turned  to  meetings  of  sweet  amitie. 

The   war-god's   thundring   cannons   dreadful   rore, 

And  rattling  drum-sounds  warlike  harmonic, 

To  sweet  tim'd  noise  of  pleasing  minstralsie, 

The  haile-like  shot,  to  tennis-balls  were  turn'd, 

And  sweet  perfumes  in  stead  of  smoakes  were  burn'd.18 

This  is  using  Shakespeare  much  as  Gibber  did. 

Act  II. — In  the  second  act,  Gibber  draws  nearer  to  the  orig- 
inal. It  is  occupied  with  the  wooing  of  Anne  and  the  mourn- 
ing for  Edward  the  Fourth.  The  wooing  is  preceded  by  a 
scene  by  Gibber  giving  the  conversation  between  Tressel  and 
Stanley,  in  which  they  discuss  the  approaching  death  of  Ed- 
ward and  the  attempts  of  Richard  to  win  the  Lady  Anne. 
Richard  appears  and  bewails  the  misfortune  of  an  ugly  body 
as  hindering  his  suit.  The  scene  draws  and  discovers  Anne, 
Stanley,  Tressel,  guards  and  bearers  with  the  body  of  King 
Henry.  What  follows  is  practically  Shakespeare's  but  cut 
down  considerably.  Gibber's  only  additions  are  the  "  asides  " 
of  Stanley  and  Tressel  upon  Anne's  weakening  opposition.17 
The  only  borrowing  is  in  Anne's  monologue,  where  the  lines 
from  "  Henry  the  Sixth,"  Part  I,  Act  I,  Scene  I,  referring 
to  Henry  the  Fifth  are  here  applied  to  the  dead  king.  From 
this  the  scene  goes  directly  to  Act  II,  Scene  2  of  Shakespeare, 
leaving  out  the  murder  of  Clarence  and  the  scene  of  recon- 
ciliation about  the  dying  Edward.  The  scene  closes  with  a 
soliloquy  by  Gibber. 

The  changes  in  the  details  in  this  act  are  noteworthy.  The 
addition  of  the  scene  before  the  wooing  of  Anne  in  which 
the  hostility  of  Buckingham  and  Stanley  is  marked  so  much 
earlier  than  in  the  original,  seems  a  reflection  of  "  The  Eng- 

16  Stanza  17. 

11  Genest  thinks  that  Gibber  shows  the  influence  of  The  English  Princess 
in  the  line, 

But  first  I'll  turn  St.  Harry  to  his  grave, 

where  he  substitutes  St.  Harry  for  Shakespeare's  "yon  fellow."     Op.  cit., 
Vol.  II,  page  200. 
7 


82 

lish  Princess,"  in  which  Stanley,  as  a  champion  of  the  faction 
against  Richard,  is  prominent  from  the  first.  The  romantic 
nature  of  Richard's  first  soliloquy  may  also  be  attributed  to  the 
same  source.  In  Shakespeare,  from  the  very  beginning,  Rich- 
ard's attempts  to  win  Anne  are  the  result  of  his  ambition; 
in  Gibber's  play,  Richard,  like  the  typical  heroic  villain, 
seems  for  a  time  to  vacillate  between  love  and  ambition.  The 
omission  by  Gibber  of  Shakespeare's  lines, 

not  all  so  much  for  love, 
As  for  another  secret  close  intent, 
By  marrying  her  which  I  must  reach  unto, 

has  been  attributed  to  blundering  and  misconception,  but  the 
effort  to  give  a  romantic  vein  to  Richard's  "  reaching  to  the 
crown,"  at  least  in  its  earlier  stages,  was  the  natural  course 
for  a  playwright  of  Gibber's  time.  In  accordance  with  the 
taste  of  the  day,  Anne  is  made  less  a  hoyden  than  in  the  scene 
in  Shakespeare,  but  weaker,  and  so  easily  won  over,  that 
Tressel  and  Stanley  exclaim  satirically: 

Stanley.     What  think  you  now,  Sir? 
Tressel.     I'm  struck !    I  scarce  can  credit  what  I  see. 
Stanley.     Why,  you  see — a  woman. 
Tressel.     When  future  chronicles  shall  speak  of  this, 
They  will  be  thought  romance,  not  history.1* 

The  "  asides  "  throughout  the  scene  are  effective,  and  give 
time  for  the  "  business "  that  made  this  scene  one  of  the 
crucial  tests  for  the  actor.  In  the  mourning  scene  Gibber  has 
made  his  changes  with  a  heavy  hand,  in  order  to  leave  no 
doubt  as  to  Richard's  duplicity.  He  enters  with  an  "  aside," 
Gibber's  addition : 

Why,  ay!  these  tears  look  well — Sorrow's  the  mode, 
And  every  one  at  Court  must  wear  it  now : 
With  all  my  heart ;  I'll  not  be  out  of  fashion. 

18 "  Gibber,  who  altered  King  Richard  III,  for  the  stage,  was  so  thor- 
oughly convinced  of  the  ridiculousness  and  improbability  of  this  scene, 
that  he  thought  himself  obliged  to  make  Tressel  say: 

When  future  chronicles,  etc." 

Note  by  Steevens,  in  the  Reed  edition  of  Shakespeare,  1802.  Vol.  14, 
page  295. 


S3 

He  stands  in  the  center  of  the  group,  weeping  and  voluble. 
The  difference  of  effect  between  this  act  and  the  opening  acts 
of  Shakespeare's  play  is  readily  explained  when  we  note  that 
instead  of  the  numerous  epic  scenes  behind  which  the  chronicle 
is  distinctly  felt,  Gibber  has  used  only  the  most  effective  scenes 
in  the  action,  and  has  introduced  them  by  the  shortest  explana- 
tion. A  further  essential  change  in  the  tone  results  from 
the  omission  of  the  figure  of  Margaret  with  her  magnificent 
curses  and  lamentations,  which  were  so  strongly  reminiscent 
of  the  medieval  drama. 

Act  III. — With  this  act  the  two  plays  come  together,  in  the 
reception  of  the  young  king  and  his  brother  in  London,  but 
all  the  following  scenes  are  omitted  to  the  end,  where  the 
Mayor  and  citizens  visit  Richard  and  offer  him  the  crown. 
In  place  of  these,  a  scene  between  Richard  and  Anne  is 
introduced.  In  the  scenes  taken  from  Shakespeare,  the  text 
is  kept  practically  as  in  the  original.  The  additions  by  Gibber 
are  interesting.  In  the  first  scene,  the  episode  of  the  pre- 
cocious Duke  of  York  taunting  Richard  with  his  deformity, 
is  taken  from  a  similar  episode  in  Shakespeare's  play,  Act 
I,  Scene  4,  where  the  child  is  talking  to  his  grandmother. 
This  brutal  touch  was  quite  in  keeping  with  the  taste  of  the 
time,  which  we  see  not  only  delighted  in  violent  scenes  as  much 
as  did  an  Elizabethan  audience,  but  enjoyed  as  well  the  added 
elements  of  cynicism  and  mockery.19  More  interesting  as  con- 
cerning the  question  of  sources  however,  is  Gibber's  most 
striking  addition  to  the  play,  the  scene  between  Richard  and 
Anne.  This  suggests  that  the  reviser  may  have  used  the 
chronicles.  The  only  hint  of  such  a  situation  in  Shakespeare 
is  in  Act  IV,  Scene  I,  where  Anne  recounts  the  miseries  of  her 
life  with  Richard.  Gibber  has  elaborated  these  allusions,  and 
along  the  lines  given  in  the  chronicles.  While  Holinshed 
gives  no  more  than  Shakespeare  has  used,  Hall  adds  in  regard 
to  Richard's  dissatisfaction  with  Anne,  that  the  King  thought 
"  he  would  enucleate  and  open  to  her  all  these  thinges,  trus- 

19  A  similar  addition  is  seen  in  Tate's  revision  of  Lear,  where,  after  the 
extrusion  of  Gloster's  eyes,  Goneril  taunts  him  with  his  blindness. 


84 

tynge  the  sequell  hereof  to  take  this  effecte,  that  she  herynge 
this  grudge  of  her  husband,  and  takyng  therefore  an  inward 
thought,  would  not  long  lyve  in  this  world."20  Graf  ton,  who 
incorporated  much  of  Hall's  text  into  his  Chronicle,  after 
telling  that  Thomas  Rotheram,  Archbishop  of  York,  was  dele- 
gated to  tell  the  Queen  of  the  King's  displeasure,  recounts  the 
scene  between  Richard  and  Anne  thus: 

"  When  the  Queene  heard  tell  that  so  horrible  a  rumour  of  her  death 
was  sprong  amongst  the  commoniltie,  she  sore  suspected  and  judged  the 
worlde  to  be  almost  at  an  end  with  her,  and  in  that  sorrowfull  agony,  shee 
with  lamentable  countenance  and  sorrowfull  chere,  repayred  to  the  presence 
of  the  King  her  husbande,  demanding  of  hym,  what  it  should  meane  that 
he  had  judged  her  worthy  to  die."21 

In  the  Chronicle  and  in  the  Latin  play,  "  Richardus  Ter- 
tius,"22  the  King  with  "  smiling  and  flattering  leasings  com- 
forted her,"  but  Cibber,  to  make  Richard's  villainy  perfectly 
unmistakable  to  his  audience,  portrays  him  as  entirely  frank 
in  regard  to  his  motives.23  This  scene  is  preceded  by  Gibber's 
most  notable  addition  to  the  lines  of  the  play,  the  soliloquy 
on  conscience,  which  appears  to  be  original  and  has  been  great- 
ly admired.24  The  act  closes  with  another  soliloquy,  also 
Gibber's. 

Act  IV ,  Scene  I. — This  scene  of  the  parting  of  the  Queen 
from  her  children  is  a  characteristic  elaboration  of  the  original, 
Act  IV,  Scene  I.  Were  not  this  frank  enjoyment  of  rather 
coarse-grained  pathos  so  truly  a  mark  of  the  eighteenth  century 

30  Edition  of  1809,  page  407. 

21  Edition  of  1809,  Vol.  II,  page  144. 

"Actio  III,  Actus  III.  The  subject  of  Anne's  death  is  treated  in  three 
scenes ;  first,  the  suggestion  from  Lovell  as  to  the  means ;  second,  Anne's 
complaint  to  her  husband;  and  third,  the  detailed  announcement  of  her 
death  by  the  messenger. 

n  In  regard  to  Gibber's  use  of  historical  sources,  Genest  says :  "  Cibber  did 
not  look  into  History,  for  fear  of  damping  his  '  Muse  of  fire '  by  too  great 
attention  to  dull  matter  of  fact."  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  page  209. 

"  In  den  aus  Shakespeare  entlehnten  abschnitten  halt  sich  Cibber  eben- 
falls  an  Hall  und  Holinshed,  wahrend  die  zuge,  die  neu  hinzukommen,  freie 
erfindung  des  bearbeiters  sind."  Dohse,  op.  cit.,  page  13. 

"Genest  says  rather  grudgingly,  "This  may  be  considered  as  the  acme 
of  Gibber's  poetry." 


85 

audience,  one  might  think  that  Gibber  had  taken  his  suggestion 
from  the  similar  scene  in  Heywood's  "  Edward  the  Fourth,"25 
where,  however,  the  overwhelming  pathos  of  the  scene  is  for 
our  taste  increased  by  the  restraint  lacking  in  Gibber's.26 

Scene  2. — This  corresponds  to  a  similar  scene  in  Shakes- 
peare, though  here  shortened.  Buckingham's  soliloquy  at  the 
end,  however,  is  lengthened. 

Scene  5. — The  murder  of  the  Princes,  in  Shakespeare  mere- 
ly reported  by  Tyrrel,  is  by  Gibber  made  as  apparent  as  possi- 
ble. The  murderers,  Digton  and  Forrest,  appear  and  make 
their  preparations.  While  they  are  performing  the  murder, 
Richard  is  present  with  a  long  soliloquy,  while  the  audience 
evidently  hears  the  screams  from  the  adjoining  room,  a  scene 
of  sheer  sensationalism.27  The  scene  of  the  mourning  women 
which  follows,  is  much  cut  down,  as  is  the  scene  between  Rich- 
ard and  Elizabeth,  which  is  otherwise  practically  the  same  as 
in  Shakespeare.  Gibber  in  this  makes  Elizabeth's  attitude  clear 
immediately,28  as  Shakespeare  does  not,  by  means  of  an 
"  aside  " : 

What  shall  I  say?     Still  to  affront  his  love, 
I  fear  will  but  incense  him  to  revenge : 
And  to  consent,  I  shou'd  abhor  myself: 
Yet  I  may  seemingly  comply,  and  thus 

25  Part  II,  Act  III,  Scene  5. 

26  A  passage  in  The  Mirror  -for  Magistrates  suggests  this  scene.      In  The 
Lamentable  Lives   and   Deaths   of   two   yong  Princes,   Edward    the   Fifth, 
and  his  Brother  Richard  Duke  of  Yorke,  stanza  39,  the  parting  of  Elizabeth 
from  her  son  Richard  is  thus  described : 

"  Farewell  my  little  sonne,  God  be  thy  aid  " 
With  that  she  turned  about,  and  wept  for  woe : 
Then  being  about  to  part,  she  turn'd  and  said, 
"  Kisse  me  my  sonne,  Kisse  me  before  thou  go, 
When  we  shall  kisse  againe,  our  God  doth  know :  " 
We  kist,  she  sigh'd,  I  wept  and  did  refuse 
So  to  depart  from  her;  but  could  not  chuse. 

27  How  are  we  to  reconcile  Forrest's 

Smothering  will  make  no  noise,   Sir, 
with 

Hark !    the  murder's  doing, 
of  Richard? 

28  Noted  also  by  Dohse,  op.  cit. 


8G 

By  sending  Richmond  word  of  his  intent, 

Shall  gain  some  time  to  let  my  child  escape  him. 

It  shall  be  so. 

The  act  closes  with  a  monologue  for  Richard  by  Gibber.29 

Act  V,  Scene  i. — The  act  opens  with  the  arrival  of  Rich- 
mond, corresponding  to  Shakespeare's  Act  V,  Scene  2. 

Scene  2. — The  events  leading  up  to  the  battle  are  much  as  in 
Shakespeare,  except  that  the  meeting  of  Richmond  and  Stanley 
occurs  earlier,  to  obviate  a  second  appearance  of  Richmond, 
and  consequent  change  of  scene,  which  on  the  Elizabethan 
stage  was  not  considered. 

Scene  j. — The  ghost  scene  is  preceded  by  a  long  soliloquy 
by  Richard,  which  is  for  the  greater  part  from  the  Prologue 
to  Act  IV,  in  Shakespeare's  "  Henry  the  Fifth,"  lines  4  to 
22.  As  Richard  lies  down,  "  a  groan  is  heard,"  adding  a  pre- 
monitory horror  to  the  scene.  The  ghosts  here,  as  in  "  The 
English  Princess,"  appear  to  Richard  alone,  and  they  number 
but  four,  Henry  the  Sixth,  Anne,  and  the  Princes,  against 
eleven  in  Shakespeare.30  Their  speeches  are  longer  and  much 
changed.  They  seem  to  have  risen  together  from  below,  re- 
mained on  the  stage  until  all  had  spoken,  and  to  have  sunken 
together  after  Henry  the  Sixth's  lines,  reminiscent  of  the 
ghost  in  "  Hamlet :" 

The  morning's  dawn  has  summoned  me  away. 

"  In  this  last  scene  occurs  Gibber's  most-quoted  line : 

Off  with  his  head — so  much  for  Buckingham. 

The  excellence  of  this  line  led  Genest  to  say,  "  This  line  is  not  Shake- 
speare's, tho'  quite  worthy  of  him — is  it  possible  that  Gibber  in  some 
happy  moment  could  produce  it  out  of  his  own  head? — if  not,  from  whence 
did  he  get  it? — perhaps  from  some  obscure  play  with  a  slight  alteration." 
Op.  cit.,  Volume  II,  page  208. 

80  The  appearance  of  ghosts  in  the  heroic  play  is  frequent.  Often  much 
is  made  of  these  scenes  by  the  introduction  of  impressive  summons,  such 
as  the  "  great  flashes  of  fire "  in  Orrery's  Herod  the  Great,  or  by  the 
working  of  elaborate  "  charms,"  as  in  Crowne's  Charles  the  Eighth.  Mr. 
Chase,  in  The  English  Heroic  Play,  pages  180-1,  notes  the  sceptical  atti- 
tude toward  these  visitants,  giving  as  a  typical  expression  of  this,  the 
scenes  in  The  English  Princess  and  the  following  lines  from  Herod  the 
Great, 

The  Dead  ne'er  to  the  Living  durst  appear, 
Ghosts  are  but  shadows  painted  by  our  fear. 


87 

Richard's  speech  upon  awaking,  again  as  in  "  The  English 
Princess,"  is  much  shortened,  but  includes  a  few  lines  by 
Gibber.  The  scene  changes  to  Richmond's  camp,  and  from 
this  point  keeps  close  to  the  original,  though  the  orations  to 
the  armies,  considered  effective  upon  the  older  stage,  are 
now  omitted,  their  substance  in  a  few  lines  being  spoken  in 
each  case  to  a  few  friends.  In  the  excursions  that  follow,  Gib- 
ber introduces  a  scene  from  "  Henry  the  Sixth,"  Part  II,  the 
war  of  words  between  Richard  and  Richmond  before  their 
encounter.  Richard  falls,  and  in  Shakespeare  dies  silently; 
in  Gibber,  he  speaks  a  long  monologue,31  of  which  the  first 
four  lines  are  Gibber's  and  the  following  six  are  from  "  Henry 
the  Fourth,"  Part  II,  Act  I,  Scene  I,  lines  155  to  i6o.32  Rich- 
mond's speech  over  the  dead  body  of  the  king: 

Farewel  Richard,  and  from  thy  dreadful  end 

May  future  kings  from  tyranny  be  warn'd : 

Had  thy  aspiring  soul  but  stirr'd  in  virtue, 

With  half  the  spirit  it  has  dar'd  in  evil, 

How  might  thy  fame  have  grac'd  our  English  Annals ! 

But  as  thou  art,  how  fair  a  page  thou'st  blotted ! 

might  have  been  suggested  by  the  similar  speech  in  "  The 
English  Princess,"  where  he  says: 

How  great  thy  Fame  had  bin,  hadst  thou  been  good ! 

The  play  closes  as  in  Shakespeare,33  with  the  addition  of  the 
lines  by  Blunt  telling  Richmond  that 

the  queen  and  fair  Elizabeth 
Her  beauteous  daughter,  some  few  miles  off, 
Are  on  their  way  to  'gratulate  your  victory, 

31  Likewise   D'Avenant  has  given   Macbeth  a  dying  speech,   and  Garrick 
did  the  same,  because  he  "  excelled  in  this,  and  therefore  could  not  give 
up   the   opportunity   to    show   his   skill."       Davies :    Dramatic  Miscellanies, 
Vol.  II,  page  119. 

32  Genest  says  that  Gibber  has  adapted  this  "  with  infinitely  more  judg- 
ment than  any  thing  else  that  he  has  borrowed."    Op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  page  216. 

88  Genest  points  out  the  likness  of  the  lines  from  Caryl's  play, 
In  this  day's  booty  they  the  crown  have  found, 
Behold  the  noblest  spoil  of  Bosworth  Field ! 
and  Gibber's 

Among  the  glorious  spoils  of  Bosworth  field 
We've  found  the  Crown. 

Op.  cit.,  page  214. 


88 
and  Richmond's  reply, 

Ay,  there  indeed,  my  toil's  rewarded. 

This  introduction  of  a  love  motive  at  the  end,  which  is  entirely 
lacking  in  Shakespeare,  and  without  historical  basis,  was  in 
accord  with  the  demands  of  the  day,  and  seems  a  reminiscence 
of  the  absurd  scene  in  "  The  English  Princess,"  where  Rich- 
mond and  Elizabeth  vie  with  each  other  in  their  protestations 
of  obligation  and  esteem.84 

In  the  examination  of  this  play  it  is  seen  that  the  reviser 
has  made  no  essential  change  in  plot  nor  in  the  conception  of 
character,  but,  following  the  instinct  of  the  practical  actor  and 
stage-manager,  has  shortened  the  play,  made  it  easier  to  fol- 
low, and  added  and  heightened  situations  in  accordance  with 
the  theatrical  taste  of  the  day.  The  play  has  been  cut  down 
from  3,603  to  2,380  lines,  a  change  justifiable  upon  the  modern 
stage,  where  time  must  be  allowed  for  the  shifting  of  scenery. 
It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  his  changes  have  made  for  dra- 
matic unity  and  coherence,  as  well  as  for  theatrical  adapta- 
bility. This  can  easily  be  seen  from  a  list  of  the  omissions,8* 

84  Genest  thinks  the  idea  of  Elizabeth's  beauty  is  from  the  same  source. 
"  Caryl's  play  differs  so  widely  from  Shakespeare's  that  Gibber  could  make 
but  very  little  use  of  it,  from  thence  however  he  has  borrowed  that  beauty 
which  he  repeatedly  bestows  on  Elizabeth,  and  of  which,  history  and 
Shakespeare  know  but  little."  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  33,  page  213. 

88  A  list  of  the  omitted  scenes  includes  the  following : 

Act      I,  Scene  i.     Richard's  conversations  with  Clarence  and  Hastings. 

Act      I,  Scene  3.     Richard  and  the  Queen's  relatives,  etc. 

Act      I,  Scene  4.     The  murder  of  Clarence.*"" 

Act    II,  Scene  i.     Reconciliation  of  the  nobles. 

Act    II,  Scene  3.     Scene  with  two  citizens. 

Act    II,  Scene  4.     Elizabeth  and  the  Duke  of  York. 

Act  III,  Scene  2.     Attempt  to  win  Hastings  to  Richard's  side. 

Act  III,  Scene  3.     Rivers,  Gray  and  Vaughan  on  their  way  to  death. 

Act  III,  Scene  4.     Hastings  accused  and  condemned.  ^ 

Act  III,  Scene  5.     Scene  on  the  Tower  walls,   i 

Act  III,  Scene  6.     Scrivener  with  the   indictment  of  Hastings. 

Act   IV,  Scene  4.     The  wailing  queens. 

Act  IV,  Scene  5.     Scene  before  Lord  Derby's  house. 

Act     V,  Scene  i.     Buckingham  led  to  execution. 

See  also  Dohse,  op.  cit.,  page  37-9. 


89 

which  have  been  largely  the  epic  scenes,38  or  those  whose  sub- 
stance could  be  given  in  short  narratives.  The  result,  while 
gained  at  the  expense  of  some  touches  of  great  significance, 
especially  in  the  character  of  Richard,  is  decidedly  a  concen- 
tration upon  the  important  aspects  of  the  theme,  and  a  more 
direct  exposition  of  the  central  figure.  About  half  of  Shake- 
speare's characters  are  omitted,  and  thus  many  parts  of  scenes. 
The  sparing  use  of  epic  scenes  and  the  smaller  number  of 
characters  as  compared  with  the  Elizabethan  plays,  we  have 
already  found  obtaining  in  the  heroic  play,  and  mark  the  trag- 
edies of  this  period. 

The  second  consideration  seems  to  have  been  to  make  the 
play  clearer  and  more  easily  followed  by  the  audience.  To  do 
this,  we  have  seen  that  "  asides  "  are  introduced,  as  in  the 
wooing,  or  in  the  scene  between  Richard  and  Elizabeth.  The 
scene  before  the  wooing,  where  Tressel  and  Stanley  give  the 
situation,  is  also  of  this  nature,  and  prepares  the  audience  for 
what  follows.  In  other  places  we  have  found  that  the  atti- 
tude of  Richard  is  made  more  patent,  less  equivocal,  as  in  the 
scene  with  Anne  in  Act  III,  and  in  the  scene  of  mourning  in 
Act  II. 

Very  significant  are  the  additions.  Perhaps  the  most  puz- 
zling in  this  bustling  play  are  the  soliloquies,  which  occur  at 
every  turn.  These  are  frequent  in  the  original  form,  but 
Gibber,  in  excess  of  Shakespeare,  ends  every  act  with  them, 
besides  introducing  many  within  scenes.  They  tend  to  call 
attention  to  Richard,  and  to  fix  his  character,  for  every  stage 
of  the  action  is  closed  with  the  hero  on  the  stage  revealing  his 
motives  and  hopes.  Other  additions  have  been  noted.  It  is 
seen  that  these  are  usually  of  a  sensational  nature,  calculated 
to  appeal  to  an  audience  that  wanted,  quite  as  distinctly  as  the 
Elizabethans,  plenty  of  action,  unambiguous  situations,  defi- 
nite emotional  values.37  There  is  in  these  a  lack  of  self- 

30  Such  as  Act  III,  scenes  3  and  6,  and  Act  V,  Scene  i. 
37  That    Gibber   appreciated   this   taste   in   the   public    comes   out   in   his 
Epilogue  to  Eugenia,  where  he  says : 

English  stomachs  love  substantial  food. 
Give  us  the  lightning's  blaze,  the  thunder's  roll ! 


90 

restraint  which  brings  them  close  to  the  melodramatic,  but  it 
is  to  be  questioned  whether  to  an  eighteenth  century  audience 
they  were  any  more  excessive  in  their  effect  than  were  the 
wailing  scenes,  or  the  murder  of  Clarence,  with  its  painful 
details  and  grotesque  humor,  to  the  theatre-goers  of  two  cen- 
turies earlier. 

In  addition,  minor  changes  occur  as  the  result  of  the 
new  methods  of  staging  already  noted  in  Chapter  III.  The 
omission  of  half  of  the  ghost  scene  was  no  more  the 
result  of  a  desire  to  shorten  the  play,  than  of  the  effort  to 
adapt  it  to  a  modern  stage,  by  eliminating  the  archaic  element 
of  representing  two  distant  places  on  the  stage  at  the  same 
time.38  The  management  of  this  whole  act  which  we  have 
cited  as  in  Shakespeare  typical  of  the  Elizabethan  stage,  and 
which  in  Gibber's  text  is  only  slightly  changed,  brings  out  the 
advantages  of  a  curtain  to  an  audience  which  has  largely  lost 
the  sense  of  "dramatic  place."39  It  was  probably  arranged 
somewhat  like  this.  The  act  opens  with  a  short  scene  with 
Richmond  and  his  forces,  on  the  proscenium  stage.  The 
curtain  is  then  drawn,  showing  Bosworth  Field,  and  Richard's 
tent  is  pitched  here.  The  curtain  drops,  and  Richmond  and 
Stanley  meet  on  the  proscenium  stage.  With  the  ghost  scene 
we  have  Richard's  tent  again,  to  which  we  return  for  the  final 

The  pointed  dagger,  and  the  poisoning  bowl ! 
Let  drums'  and  trumpets'  clangor  swell  the  scene, 
Till  the  gor'd  battle  bleed  in  every  vein. 

Quoted  by  Lounsbury,  op  cit.,  page  197. 

**A  further  justification  of  Gibber  is  advanced  by  Mr.  Corbin,  in  his 
article,  Shakespeare  and  the  Plastic  Stage  (Atlantic  Monthly,  Vol.  97,  page 
376,  note),  where  he  shows  that  Gibber's  rearrangement  of  the  scenes  is 
necessitated  by  the  non-adaptability  of  the  original  to  the  pictorial  stage. 
At  the  same  time  he  takes  the  opportunity  to  say  a  word  of  appreciation 
for  the  dramatic  quality  of  the  Gibber  version,  made  by  "  the  reputed 
master  of  clap-trap." 

"By  1700,  Drury  Lane  had  been  so  altered  by  Christopher  Rich,  the 
manager,  to  increase  the  seating  capacity  of  the  building,  that  the  "  apron  " 
had  become  much  shortened,  and  the  stage  started  on  its  way  toward  the 
"  flat "  stage  of  to-day.  For  a  discussion  of  the  development  of  the  later 
form  during  this  period,  see  A  Forgotten  Stage  Conventionality,  by  W.  J. 
Lawrence,  in  Anglia,  Vol.  26  (1903). 


91 

preparations  for  battle,  after  a  short  outer  scene  with  Rich- 
mond. The  act  closes  with  the  entire  stage  exposed  and  the 
tent  of  Richard  removed.40  We  have  noted  that  the  scene  in 
Baynard  Castle  was  adapted  to  a  stage  without  a  center  bal- 
cony, and  the  funeral  procession,  with  the  presence  of  a  front 
curtain,  was  changed  into  a  tableau.41  Again,  there  was 
economy  of  scene-change  in  Act  V,  in  the  scenes  between 
Richmond  and  Stanley,  such  as  would  not  have  been  considered 
on  the  Elizabethan  stage. 

The  presence  of  Richard  on  the  stage  is  here  considerably 
more  constant  than  in  Shakespeare's  play.  There  we  found 
ten  scenes  in  which  Richard  did  not  figure ;  in  Gibber's  form 
only  three  are  without  the  protagonist.  This  difference  is  due 
in  large  measure,  of  course,  to  the  omission  of  the  epic  scenes, 
but  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  general  impression  gained, 
this  is  an  important  difference. 

From  Gibber's  "  Apology  "  we  may  gain  a  pretty  clear  idea 
of  his  conception  of  Richard  the  Third,  as  he  attempted  to 
represent  the  part  in  his  acting,  for  he  played  the  title  part  in 
his  revision  for  many  years.42  In  his  sketch  of  the  life  and 
work  of  the  actor,  Samuel  Sandford,  called  by  Charles  the 
Second  "  the  best  villain  in  the  world,"  he  says : 

"  Had  Sandford  lived  in  Shakespear's  Time,  I  am  confident  his  judg- 
ment must  have  chose  him  above  all  other  Actors  to  have  play'd  his 
Richard  the  Third :  I  leave  his  Person  out  of  the  Question,  which  tho' 
naturally  made  for  it,  yet  that  would  have  been  the  least  Part  of  his 
Recommendation ;  Sandford  had  stronger  Claims  to  it ;  he  had  sometimes 
an  uncouth  Stateliness  in  his  Motion,  a  harsh  and  sullen  Pride  of  Speech, 
a  meditating  Brow,  a  stern  Aspect,  occasionally  changing  into  an  almost 
ludicrous  Triumph  over  all  Goodness  and  Virtue:  From  thence  falling 
into  the  most  asswasive  Gentleness  and  soothing  Candour  of  a  designing 
Heart.  These,  I  say,  must  have  preferr'd  him  to  it."43 

40  It   seems   likely   that   at   this   time   the   tendency   was   toward   a   more 
frequent  change  of  scene  than  in  the  later  staging  of  this  play. 

41  "  Scene  draws,  and  discovers  Lady  Anne  in  Mourning,   Lord  Stanley, 
Tressel,    Guards    and    Bearers,    with    King    Henry's    Body."       It    must    be 
remembered,   however,   that  the   illuminated   stage   was  not  possible  until 
nearly  a  half  century  later. 

"Until  1733,  with  occasional  appearances  thereafter. 
"Volume  I,  page  138. 


92 

Anthony  Aston  rather  maliciously  describes  the  person  of 
this  ideal  Richard  as  "  Round-shoulder'd,  Meagre-fac'd, 
Spindle-shank'd,  Splay-footed,  with  a  sour  Countenance,  and 
long,  lean  Arms."44  According  to  this,  the  conception  of 
Richard's  extreme  ugliness,  which  had  been  glossed  over  in  the 
heroic  play  of  "  The  English  Princess,"  here  seems  to  be 
revived. 

The  method  of  acting  at  this  time  and  for  the  following 
forty  years  was  influenced  by  the  example  of  the  French  stage, 
and  exemplified  at  its  best  in  Betterton  and  the  great  actors 
of  his  time,  while  the  less  original  performers  easily  fell  into 
the  vices  which  followed  the  adoption  of  this  method.  The 
elocution  is  referred  to  as  a  "  demi-chant,"  and  the  action  is 
described  as  stiff,  ponderous,  stilted,  a  result  of  the  "  heroic  " 
manner.  Thus,  Aaron  Hill,  in  the  dedication  of  his  "  Fatal 
Vision,"  complains  of  the  "  affected,  vicious,  and  unnatural 
tone  of  voice  "  common  on  the  stage  and  exempts  Booth  alone 
among  tragedians  from  a  "  horrible  theatric  way  of  speak- 
ing."45 Gibber  carried  on  this  Betterton  tradition,  with  more 
or  less  success,  especially  in  the  matter  of  elocution,  and  taught 
it  to  the  younger  actors  about  him.40 

In  dress,  the  old  ideas  of  costume  still  prevailed.  The  men 
dressed  as  their  contemporaries;  the  women,  whose  presence 
on  the  stage  we  have  noted  in  connection  with  "  The  English 
Princess,"  appeared  in  all  the  furbelows  of  the  latest  London 
fashions,  wore  towering  head-dresses,  and  had  pages  to  carry 
about  their  enormous  trains.47  With  the  increased  promi- 

44  A  Brief  Supplement  to  Colley  Cibber  Esq.  his  lives  of  the  late  famous 
actors  and  actresses.  Reprinted  in  R.  W.  Lowe's  edition  of  Gibber's 
Apology,  Vol.  II,  page  306. 

"Joseph  Knight,  Life  of  Garrick,  page  26. 

48  Gibber's  most  noted  pupil,  Mrs.  Theophilus  Cibber,  a  really  gifted 
actress,  is  spoken  of  as  moving  her  audience,  in  spite  of  the  high-pitched, 
chant-like  delivery  of  her  lines. 

41 "  The  Gibbers,  and  Bellamys,  and  Barrys,  revelled  in  and  extorted  from 
reluctant  managers,  those  rich,  gorgeous,  and  elaborate  robes,  in  which 
they  looked  like  true  '  tragedy  queens.'  They  were  '  inhabitants,'  as 
Steele  would  say,  of  the  most  sumptuous  structures,  stiff,  spreading,  en- 
crusted with  trimmings  and  furbelows  as  stiff.  Their  heads  towered  with 


93 

nence  of  the  "  star  "  at  this  time,  another  incongruity  made 
its  appearance,  in  that  the  leading  character  dressed  extrava- 
gantly, while  the  supporting  actors  were  sometimes  in  rags,  a 
common  cause  of  complaint  during  the  greater  part  of  the 
century. 

We  noticed  that  "  The  English  Princess  "  was  given  with  a 
"jig"  to  close  the  performance.  There  is  no  record  of  such 
being  used  with  "  Richard  the  Third  "  in  the  early  perform- 
ances, but  in  other  plays  nearly  contemporary,  farces  or  scenes 
from  other  plays  are  mentioned  in  the  play-bills,  showing  that 
some  sort  of  after-piece  was  still  the  fashion,  but  that  its  form 
was  changing.48  The  first  notice  of  such  a  piece  with  "  Rich- 
ard the  Third  "  is  on  October  14,  1732,  at  Drury  Lane,  when 
it  was  followed  by  "  Devil  to  Pay."  This  same  bill  mentions 
"  a  new  Prologue  to  the  memory  of  Wilkes,"  suggesting  that 
the  play  was  furnished  with  this  essential,  though  none  of 
these  has  been  discovered.40 

strange  and  nodding  edifices,  built  and  entwined  with  rows  of  pearls  and 
other  jewels.  .  .  .  With  such  accessories  and  recollections  of  the 
majestic  demi-chanting  which  even  now  obtains  on  the  French  stage,  we 
might  almost  accept  this  rococo  school  as  a  type  of  something  grand  and 
elevating.  These  stage  royal  ladies  were  usually  attended  by  pages,  even 
in  their  most  intimate  and  domestic  scenes,  who  never  let  down  the 
sumptuous  trains  of  their  mistresses.  There  could  be  none,  therefore,  of 
that  '  crossing '  and  recrossing  which  make  up  the  bustle  and  movement 
of  modern  drama.  Nor  was  this  style  of  decoration  made  subservient  to 
the  interests  of  the  play.  Mrs.  Gibber  played  her  Juliet  in  white  satin, 
hoops  and  furbelows.  .  .  .  Clive  or  Woffington,  when  doing  the  '  pert ' 
part  of  a  waiting-maid,  or  the  more  gauche  one  of  a  farmer's  rustic 
daughter,  presented  themselves  in  white  satin  shoes,  and  with  their  hair 
dressed  according  to  the  gorgeous  cannons  of  London  fashions."  Fitz- 
gerald, Life  of  Garrick,  Vol.  II,  pages  24-5. 

48  On  June  30,  1703,  Humour  of  the  Age  was  given  with  an  Interlude  of 
City  Customs  by  "  several  Aldermen's  Ladies  " ;  the  next  spring  The  School 
Boy  was  performed  with  the  last  act  of  Le  Medecin  Malgre  Lui;  Taming 
of  the  Shrew  was  given  in  July  with  scenes  from  the  same  play ;  on  June 
30,   1705,  The  Royal  Merchant  was  followed  by  Purcell's  Frost  Scene  in 
King  Arthur.     Genest,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II. 

49  Heywood's   prologue   for  a   "  a   young  witty   Lad   playing   the   part   of 
Richard  the  Third  "  at  the  Red  Bull,  is  the  only  possible  one  discovered, 
and  this  was  probably  not  for  Shakespeare's  play  but  for  Rowley's.      The 


94 

It  is  in  general  effect,  however,  that  the  greatest  difference 
lies  between  this  revision  and  the  original  Shakespearian  form. 
"  Richard  the  Third  "  is  no  longer  a  largely  conceived  epic 
play  with  throngs  of  characters,  with  archaic  elements  that 
take  one  back  to  the  medieval  drama,  with  the  crude  staging 
that  recalls  the  earliest  days  of  dramatic  representation,  but  it 
has  become  essentially  modern.  It  has  been  subjected  to  the 
demands  of  reason  obtaining  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and 
to  the  changes  of  a  scenic  stage.  We  no  longer  feel  the  chron- 
icle story  back  of  it,  but  the  effects  are  purely  dramatic,  with 
theatrical  sensationalism  freely  introduced.  More  than  ever 
the  interest  centers  about  Richard,  adding  greatly  to  its  appeal 
to  the  actors,  because  of  the  opportunity  given  for  declamation 
and  striking  situation.  It  is  significant  that  Gibber's  revision 
appeared  at  the  beginning  of  a  century  in  which  the  distin- 
guishing characteristic,  so  far  as  the  stage  is  concerned,  is  the 
prominence  given  to  the  actor.  It  has  been  called  "  the  cen- 
tury of  the  actor."  It  may  not  have  been  entirely  without 
some  foresight  of  this  that  Gibber  was  led  to  choose  this  one 
of  Shakespeare's  plays  for  revision,  for  by  1700,  with  Better- 
ton,  Barton  Booth  and  Quin,  the  age  of  great  actors  had 
already  begun. 

The  history  of  this  revision  for  the  first  thirty  or  forty 
years  of  its  existence  is  rather  meager.  We  know  that  Gibber 
played  the  principal  part  until  1733,  though  with  no  great 
success.  Mr.  Lowe,  in  his  edition  of  the  "  Apology,"50  gives 
the  following  cast  for  the  play  in  1700: 

"  King  Henry  the  Sixth,  designed  for Mr.  Wilks. 

Edward,  Prince  of  Wales Mrs.  Allison. 

evidence  against  this  being  a  Shakespearian  Richard  the  Third  is  dis- 
cussed by  F.  G.  Fleay  in  his  History  of  the  London  Stage,  page  354.  The 
play,  according  to  Sir  Henry  Herbert's  entry  in  the  Office  Book,  be- 
longed to  the  Palsgrave  Company.  This,  in  1637,  had  the  name  of 
Prince  Charles'  Men  and  was  playing  at  the  Red  Bull.  J.  P.  Collier,  in 
Annals  of  the  Stage,  page  18,  notes  that  in  1627,  Sir  Henry  Herbert, 
Master  of  Revels,  was  paid  £  5  by  the  King's  Players,  then  at  Blackfriars, 
to  prevent  the  players  at  the  Red  Bull  from  performing  Shakespeare's 
plays. 

60  Vol.  II,  page  288. 


95 

Richard  Duke  of  York Miss  Chock. 

Richard  Duke  of  Gloucester Mr.  Gibber. 

Buckingham  Mr.  Powel. 

Stanley    Mr.  Mills 

Norfolk  Mr.  Simpson. 

Ratcliff    Mr.  Kent. 

Catesby    Mr.  Thomas. 

Henry,  Earl  of  Richmond Mr.  Evans. 

Oxford    Mr.  Fairbank. 

Queen  Elizabeth Mrs.  Knight. 

Lady  Anne    Mrs.  Rogers. 

Cicely51    Mrs.  Powell." 

Gibber,  in  his  "  Apology,"  says  that  he  copied  Sandford,  his 
ideal  for  Richard,  then  playing  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  and 
therefore  not  available  for  Gibber's  Company,  in  his  interpre- 
tation of  the  part,  and  did  it  so  well  that  Sir  John  Vanbrugh 
complimented  him  upon  the  imitation.  Contemporary  criti- 
cism, however,  is  not  so  enthusiastic.  "  The  Laureate,"  a 
furious  attack  upon  Gibber,  says  that  "  he  screamed  thro'  four 
Acts  without  Dignity  or  Decency,"  and  in  the  fifth,  "  degener- 
ated all  at  once  into  Sir  Novelty"  (Gibber's  favorite  comedy 
character),  and  "  when  he  was  kill'd  by  Richmond,  one  might 
plainly  perceive  that  the  good  People  were  not  better  pleas'd 
that  so  execrable  Tyrant  was  destroy'd,  than  that  so  execrable 
an  Actor  was  silent."52  Davies  says :  "  Gibber  had  two  pas- 
sions, which  constantly  exposed  him  to  severe  censure,  and 
sometimes  the  highest  ridicule:  his  writing  tragedy  and  acting 
tragic  characters.  In  both  he  persisted  to  the  last;  for,  after 
he  had  left  the  stage  for  many  years,  he  acted  Richard  III,  and 
very  late  in  life  produced  his  Papal  Tyranny.  .  .  .  The  truth 
is,  Gibber  was  endured  in  this  and  other  tragic  parts,  on  ac- 
count of  his  general  merit  in  comedy."53  Later  he  says, 
"  Gibber  persisted  so  obstinately  in  acting  parts  in  tragedy, 
that  at  last  the  public  grew  out  of  patience,  and  fairly  hissed 
him  off  the  stage."54 

51 /.  e.,  the  Duchess  of  York  whose  name  was  Cicely  Neville. 

62  The  Laureate :  or  the  right  side  of  Colley  Cibber,  Esq.,  etc.  London, 
1740.  Quoted  by  R.  W.  Lowe,  in  his  edition  of  the  Apology,  Vol.  I,  page 
140,  note. 

08  Davies,  Dramatic  Miscellanies,  Vol.  Ill,  page  471. 

84  Ditto,  page  469. 


96 

Added  to  the  disabilities  of  the  chief  actor  of  the  part  dur- 
ing the  first  decades  of  its  history,  an  unlooked-for  misfortune 
befel  it.  In  1698,  Jeremy  Taylor  had  lashed  the  immorality 
of  the  contemporary  stage  so  effectively  that  not  only  were  the 
playwrights  put  to  shame,  but  the  Licenser  of  Plays,  Charles 
Killigrew,  was  stirred  to  unwonted  zeal,  which  found  a  fitting 
object  in  this  very  play.  Gibber  gives  this  account  of  his  ill- 
usage  : 

"  When  Richard  the  Third  (as  I  alter'd  it  from  Shakespear)  came  from 
his  hands  for  the  Stage,  he  expugn'd  the  whole  first  Act  without  sparing 
a  line  of  it.  This  extraordinary  Stroke  of  Sic  volo  occasioned  my  applying 
to  him  for  the  small  Indulgence  of  a  Speech  or  two,  that  the  other  four 
Acts  might  limp  on  with  a  little  less  absurdity  I  no !  he  had  not  leisure  to 
consider  what  might  be  separately  inoffensive.  He  had  an  objection  to 
the  whole  Act,  and  the  Reason  he  gave  for  it  was,  that  the  distresses  of 
King  Henry  the  Sixth,  who  is  killed  by  Richard  in  the  first  Act,  would  put 
weak  People  too  much  in  mind  of  King  James,  then  living  in  France ;  .  .  . 
In  a  Word,  we  were  forc'd,  for  some  few  Years,  to  let  the  Play  take  its 
Fate  with  only  four  Acts  divided  into  five ;  by  the  Loss  of  so  considerable 
Limb,  may  we  not  modestly  suppose  it  was  robbed  of  at  least  a  fifth  Part 
of  that  Favour  it  afterwards  met  with?  For  tho'  this  first  Act  was  at 
last  recovered,  and  made  the  Play  whole  again,  yet  Relief  came  too  late 
to  repay  me  for  Pains  I  had  taken  with  it." M 

In  this  lopped  condition  the  play  evidently  appeared,  until 
George  I,  in  the  patent  granted  to  Sir  Richard  Steele  and  his 
assignees,  of  which  Gibber  was  one,  made  the  managers  the 
sole  judges  of  what  plays  should  be  put  on  their  stage.  This 
was  in  1715.  These  circumstances  may  account  for  the  slow- 
ness with  which  the  play  apparently  won  its  way  to  popular 
favor,  for  not  until  about  this  time  does  it  seem  to  have  ap- 
peared with  any  frequency  on  the  boards.58 

How  many  times  "  Richard  the  Third  "  was  played  in  1700, 
I  have  been  unable  to  ascertain.87  The  next  performance 

68  Apology,  Vol.  I,  pages  275-6. 

**  In  his  address  to  the  reader  in  Ximena,  1719,  Gibber  says,  "Every 
Auditor,  whose  Memory  will  give  him  Leave,  cannot  but  know,  that 
Richard  the  third,  which  I  alter'd  from  Shakespear,  did  not  raise  me  Five 
Pounds  on  the  Third  Day,  though  for  several  years  since,  it  has  seldom, 
or  never  failed  of  a  crowded  Audience." 

M  Its  first  appearance  was  in  Lent,   1700.     Genest  quotes  an  advertise- 


97 

recorded  by  Genest  is  in  1704,  when  it  was  played  at  Drury 
Lane  on  April  4th,  for  Gibber's  benefit,  after  a  lapse  of  three 
years.  It  next  appeared  at  the  Haymarket  Theatre  for  a 
benefit  for  Mrs.  Porter,  on  March  27,  1710,  acted  by  the 
Drury  Lane  Company.58  There  was  another  lapse  of  three 
years  before  it  was  given  again,  at  Drury  Lane,  on  February 
14,  1713,  but  from  this  time  it  appeared  with  greater  fre- 
quency,59 which,  together  with  other  evidence,  suggests  that 
the  strictures  of  the  Licenser  were  perhaps  disregarded  before 
they  were  formally  removed,  and  that  the  first  act  was  prob- 
ably restored.60 

For  the  first  twenty  years,  the  play  seems  to  have  been  acted 
exclusively  by  the  Drury  Lane  Company,  with  Gibber  as  the 
only  Richard,  and  Wilks  as  Henry  the  Sixth.61  In  March, 

ment  at  the  end  of  Manning's  Generous  Choise,  which  came  out  in  Lent  of 
that  year,  in  which  it  is  said,  "  This  day  is  published  the  last  new  Tragedy 
called  Richard  the  3rd,  written  by  Mr.  Gibber."  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  page  219. 
68  Malone  says  that  Richard  the  Third  "  was  once  performed  at  Drury 
Lane  in  1703,  and  lay  dormant  from  that  time  to  the  28th  of  Jan.  1710, 
when  it  was  revived  at  the  Opera  House  in  Haymarket."  History  of  the 
Stage,  page  347.  The  discrepancy  of  dates  is  due  to  Malone's  use  of  the 
old  style  in  dating. 

88  Malone  observes  that  after  Rowe's  edition  of  Shakespeare's  Works 
in  1709,  the  exhibition  of  his  plays  became  more  frequent  than  before. 
Op.  cit.,  page  348. 

60  As  early  as  1710,  Genest  gives  Henry  the  Sixth  in  the  cast.  This  may 
mean  that  at  that  date  the  restriction  was  practically  removed  or  disre- 
garded. An  early  attempt  had  been  made  to  use  Act  I,  as  seen  from 
Genest's  record:  "In  the  Daily  Courant  for  Oct.  i2th  [1702]  Pinketham 
proposed  to  present  the  town  on  his  night  with  a  Medley  which  was  to  con- 
sist— ist  of  the  death  of  King  Henry  6th — 2dly  of  scenes  from  Aesop — and 
3dly  of  the  School  Boy — Richard  the  3d,  the  Beau,  and  Major  Rakish  by 
Pinketham."  This  Medley  was  not  given,  but  "  by  particular  desire  "  the 
play  was  altered  to  Love  makes  a  Man.  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  pages  254-5.  The 
"  particular  desire  "  may  have  emanated  from  the  Licenser's  office. 
01  In  1721  the  principal  parts  were  taken  as  follows. 

King  Henry  the  Sixth Mr.  Wilks. 

Edward,  Prince  of  Wales Mr.  Norris,  Jun. 

Richard,  Duke  of  York Mr.  Lindar. 

Richard,  Duke  of  Gloucester Mr.  Gibber. 

Duke  of  Buckingham Mr.  Mills. 

Henry,  Earl  of  Richmond Mr.  Ryan. 

8 


98 

1721,  however,  it  was  given  at  the  theatre  in  Lincoln's  Inn 
Fields,  with  Ryan  as  Richard,  Boheme  as  Henry  the  Sixth, 
Quin  as  Buckingham,  the  other  characters  being  unimportant.82 
This  was  the  beginning  of  that  series  of  rival  performances  of 
"  Richard  the  Third  "  which  continued  throughout  the  century, 
and  in  which  the  most  noted  actors  of  the  time  took  part.  For 
some  reason  "  Richard  the  Third  "  does  not  appear  in  the  play- 
bills of  Drury  Lane  between  1720  and  1726,  but  the  play  was 
frequently  given  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields.  There  Ryan  played 
the  part  of  Richard  until  about  1740,  when  he  shared  it  with 
Quin,  both  of  these  men  having  performed  in  it  at  Drury  Lane 
years  before,  Ryan  as  Richmond,  and  Quin  as  Lieutenant  of 
the  Tower,  the  part  in  which  he  first  attracted  attention  by  his 
painstaking  representation  of  an  unimportant  character. 
Ryan's  Richard  was  a  rugged  conception,  of  more  individuality 
than  those  preceding  him,  and  one  which  Garrick  confessed  he 
took  in  its  general  features  as  the  model  for  his  own.03  The 
company  from  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  moved  to  their  new  theatre 
in  Covent  Garden  in  December,  1732,  where  Ryan,  with  the 
help  of  Quin  for  several  years,  still  held  the  part,  until  the 
middle  of  the  century  and  the  advent  of  a  new  generation  of 
actors. 

In  the  fall  of  1726,  Drury  Lane  took  up  the  play  again,  with 
the  former  cast  for  the  principal  parts,  Gibber  continuing  to 
play  Richard  until  his  retirement  in  I733.84  By  this  time, 

Lieutenant  of  the  Tower Mr.  Quin. 

Elizabeth    Mrs.  Porter. 

Lady  Anne Mrs.  Horton. 

Duchess  of  York Mrs.  Baker. 

*2Lady  Mary  Montague  in  a  letter  from  Paris,  written  in  1718,  speaks 
thus  of  the  English  actors  of  the  time :  "  I  have  seen  the  tragedy  of  Bajazet 
so  well  represented,  I  think  our  best  actors  can  be  only  said  to  speak, 
but  these  to  feel;  and  'tis  certainly  infinitely  more  moving  to  see  a  man 
appear  unhappy,  than  to  hear  him  say  that  he  is  so,  with  a  jolly  face,  and 
a  stupid  smirk  in  his  countenance." 

68  Doran,  Their  Majesties'  Servants,  Vol.  II,  page  41.  Garrick  went  to 
see  Ryan  for  the  purpose  of  laughing  at  his  uncouth  figure,  and  rasping 
pronunciation,  but  was  surprised  to  find  great  excellence,  and  much  to 
introduce  into  his  own  representation. 

94  Gibber  appeared  once  more  in  the  part  in  1739.      Mr.  Lowe  remarks 


99 

Quin  had  joined  the  Drury  Lane  Company,  and  Gibber's  part 
fell  to  him.  Quin  carried  on  the  Betterton  tradition  of  the 
"  heroic  "  manner  in  his  solemn,  ponderous,  chant-like,  monot- 
onous pronunciation,  which  gave  an  effect  of  oppressive  dig- 
nity.65 Cumberland  says  of  Quin's  acting :  "  Unable  to  ex- 
press emotions,  whether  violent  or  tender,  he  was  forced  or 
languid  in  action,  and  ponderous  and  sluggish  in  movement. 
In  great  characters  of  tragedy  he  was  lost,  and  the  most  trust- 
worthy of  contemporary  critics  declares  that  people  will  re- 
member with  pleasure  his  Brutus  and  his  Cato,  and  wish  to 
forget  his  Richard  and  his  Lear."66 

Such  was  the  situation  up  to  the  epoch-making  performances 
of  Garrick.  From  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  play  with 
the  first  act  restored,  about  1714,  there  had  been  hardly  a  sea- 
son when  it  was  not  played;  for  most  of  this  time  it  was 
appearing  at  both  houses,67  and  had  been  undertaken  by  every 

that  during  the  dull  period  in  the  theater  between  1730  and  Garrick,  when 
Quin  was  the  great  man,  Gibber's  reappearances  after  retirement  must  have 
had  an  importance  and  interest  which  they  lacked  after  Garrick's  advent. 
65  His  eyes,  in  gloomy  socket  taught  to  roll, 
Proclaim'd  the  sullen  '  habit  of  his  soul ' : 
Heavy  and  phlegmatic  he  trod  the  stage, 
Too  proud  for  tenderness,  too  dull  for  rage. 

Churchill :   The  Rosciad,  lines  963-7. 

66  Quoted  by  Knight,  op.  cit.,  pages  62-3. 

67  In  addition  to  the  performances  at  the  London  theatres,  the  play  seems 
to  have  been  given  at  the  great  fairs  during  the  period  of  their  greatest 
fame,   1714-1750.      All  the  leading  actors,  with  the  exception  of  Garrick, 
acted  in  these  booths  the  plays  popular  in  London.      We  have  a  record  of 
the  appearance  of  Richard  the  Third  at  Bartholomew  Fair  in  1738.      The 
notice  read  as  follows :  "  At  Turbutt's  and  Yates'  (from  Goodman's  Fields) 
Great  Theatrical  Booth,   formerly  Hallam's,     .     .     .     will  be  presented  a 
dramatic  piece,  call'd  the  True  and  Ancient  History  of  the  Loves  of  King 
Edward  the  4th,  and  his  famous  Concubine,  Jane  Shore  in  Shoreditch,  the 
acquisition  of  the  crown  by  King  Richard  the  3d   (commonly  call'd  crook- 
back'd    Richard)    and    many    other    true    historical    passages — interspersed 
with  the  comical  humours  of  Sir  Anthony  Lackbrains,  his  man  Wezel,  and 
Captain  Blunderbuss."     King  Edward  was  played  by  Dighton,  King  Richard 
by  Taswell,   and  Jane  Shore  by  Mrs.   Lamball.      Genest,   op.  cit.,  Vol.  X, 
page    164.      Genest  also   gives   an   advertisement  of  King  in   the  Country, 
taken  from  the  first  part  of  Heywood's  Edward  the  Fourth. 


100 

great    actor,    with    the    exception    of    Barton    Booth,    since 
Betterton.68 

88  During  these  years,  an  important  play  dealing  with  Richard  the  Third 
had  appeared,  Nicholas  Rowe's  Jane  Shore,  in  1713.  This  play,  which  was 
constantly  upon  the  stage  until  far  into  the  nineteenth  century,  presents 
but  a  subordinate  side  of  Richard's  character,  and  develops  the  Hastings 
scenes  from  Shakespeare's  Richard  the  Third,  which  Gibber  had  omitted. 
It  throws  light  upon  Quin's  idea  of  the  character  of  Richard  that  he 
called  Gloster  in  this  play  "  one  of  his  strut  and  whisker  parts."  Davies, 
op.  cit.,  page  213. 

Some  interest  may  be  attached  to  a  play  noticed  by  Genest  as  acted  but 
once  at  Drury  Lane  in  1723:  An  Historical  Tragedy  of  the  Civil  Wars 
between  the  Houses  of  York  and  Lancaster,  etc.,  by  Theophilus  Gibber,  son 
of  the  adaptor  of  Richard  the  Third.  The  principal  additions  were  the 
love  scenes  between  Price  Edward  and  Lady  Anne,  and  a  few  speeches  by 
Gibber.  The  author  played  the  Prince  and  the  poet  Savage  the  Duke  of 
York. 


V 
FROM    GARRICK    TO    IRVING — 1741-1897 

Garrick  as  Richard  the  Third — Popularity — Revolution  in  staging  at 
Drury  Lane — Work  of  De  Loutherbourg — John  Philip  Kemble — New  Drury 
Lane — Capon — Elaborate  revivals  of  old  play — Archeological  reforms  at 
Covent  Garden — Kemble's  version  of  "  Richard  the  Third  " — Edmund  Kean 
— Charles  William  Macready — His  attempt  to  "  restore "  "  Richard  the 
Third  " — Work  of  Samuel  Phelps  at  Sadler's  Wells — Revivals  of  Charles 
Kean  at  the  Princess — Henry  Irving — His  restoration  of  the  Shakespearian 
text — General  summary. 

For  the  first  forty  years  of  its  history,  Gibber's  version 
had  been  the  subject  of  no  great  or  original  interpretation, 
nor  had  it  made  any  considerable  stir  in  the  theatrical  world, 
but  with  Garrick,  a  new  era  in  its  history  began.  In  Goodman's 
Fields  a  theater  had  been  fitted  up  in  1729,  that  without  a 
license,  and  under  the  guise  of  giving  concerts  and  adding 
gratuitously  an  after-play,  had  been  running  with  some  success. 
It  was  here  that  Garrick  appeared  as  Richard  the  Third  on 
October  I9th,  1741.  The  play-bill  read  as  follows: 

October  igth,   1741. 
Goodman's  Fields. 

At  the  late  Theatre,  in   Goodman's  Fields,  this  day,  will  be  performed  a 
Concert  of  Vocal  and  Instrumental  Music,  divided  into  Two  Parts. 

Tickets  at  three,  two  and  one  shilling. 
Places  for  the  Boxes  to  be  taken  at  the  Fleece 

Tavern,  next  the  Theatre. 

N.  B.     Between  the  two  parts  of  the  Concert,  will  be  presented, 

an  Historical  Play  called, 

The  Life  and  Death  of 

King  Richard  the  Third. 

Containing  the  distress  of  K.  Henry  VI. 

The  artful  acquisition  of  the  Crown 

by  King  Richard. 

The  murder  of  young  King  Edward  V. 

and  his  brother  in  the  Tower. 

101 


102 

The  landing  of  the  Earl  of  Richmond;  and  the  death  of  King  Richard  in 

the  memorable  battle  of  Bosworth-field,  being  the  last  that  was 

fought  between  the   houses   of   York   and   Lancaster. 

With  many  other  true  Historical  passages. 
The  part  of  King  Richard  by  a  Gentleman  (who  never 

appeared  on  any  stage), 

King  Henry  by  Mr.  Giffard;  Richmond,  Mr.  Marshall;  Prince  Edward  by 
Miss  Hippisley ;   Duke  of  York,  Miss  Naylor ;   Duke  of  Buckingham,   Mr. 
Patterson;  Duke  of  Norfolk,  Mr.  Blakes ;  Lord  Stanley,  Mr.  Pagett;  Ox- 
ford, Mr.  Vaughan;  Tressel,  Mr.  W.  Giffard;  Catesby,  Mr.  Marr ;  Ratcliff, 
Mr.  Crofts ;  Blunt,  Mr.  Naylor ;  Tyrrel,  Mr.  Puttenham ;  Lord  Mayor,  Mr. 
Dunstall;  The  Queen,  Mrs.  Steel;  Duchess  of  York,  Mrs.  Yates ; 
And  the  part  of  Lady  Anne 

By  Mrs.  Giffard. 

With  Entertainments  of  Dancing, 

By  Mons.  Froment,  Madam  Duvall, 

and  the  two  Masters  and 

Miss  Granier. 

To  which  will  be  added 

A  Ballad  Opera  of  One  Act,  called, 

The  Virgin  Unmask'd, 

The  part  of  Lucy  by  Miss  Hippisley. 

Both  which  will  be  performed  gratis,  by  persons 

for  their  diversion. 
The  Concert  will  begin  exactly  at  six  o'clock.1 

This  and  the  following  performances  created  an  unprece- 
dented sensation.  The  "  Daily  Post "  spoke  of  its  reception 
as  "  the  most  extraordinary  and  great  that  was  ever  known  on 
such  an  occasion,"2  Garrick's  acting  came  to  the  public  as  a 
revelation,  and  as  something  so  entirely  different  from  what 
they  were  used  to  in  Quin,  Delane  and  others  on  the  stage 
at  the  time,  that  it  appeared  to  them  that  he  had  invented  an 
art.  Davies,  a  contemporary  biographer,  says: 

"  Mr.  Garrick's  easy  and  familiar,  yet  forcible  style  in  speaking  and  act- 
ing, at  first  threw  the  critics  into  some  hesitation  concerning  the  novelty 
as  well  as  propriety  of  his  manner.  They  had  been  long  accustomed  to  an 
elevation  of  the  voice,  with  a  sudden  mechanical  depression  of  its  tones, 
calculated  to  excite  admiration,  and  to  entrap  applause.  To  the  just 
modulation  of  the  words,  and  concurring  expression  of  the  features  from 
the  genuine  workings  of  nature,  they  had  been  strangers,  at  least  for  some 

1  Given  by  Knight,  in  David  Garrick,  London,  1894,  page  22-3. 

2  Quoted  by  Knight,  op.  cit.,  page  28. 


103 

time.  But  after  he  had  gone  through  a  variety  of  scenes,  in  which  he  gave 
evident  proof  of  consummate  art,  and  perfect  knowledge  of  character, 
their  doubts  were  turned  into  surprise  and  astonishment,  from  which  they 
relieved  themselves  by  loud  and  reiterated  applause.  .  .  .  When  news  was 
brought  to  Richard,  that  the  duke  of  Buckingham  was  taken,  Garrick's  look 
and  action,  when  he  pronounced  the  words 

Off  with  his  head ! 
So  much  for  Buckingham ! 

were  so  significant  and  important,  from  his  visible  enjoyment  of  the  inci- 
dent, that  several  loud  shouts  of  approbation  proclaimed  the  triumph  of 
the  actor  and  satisfaction  of  the  audience.  The  death  of  Richard  was 
accompanied  with  the  loudest  gratulations  of  applause."3 

Another  contemporary,  Arthur  Murphy,  gives  a  more  de- 
talied  but  no  less  enthusiastic  description  of  Garrick's  Richard : 

"  The    moment   he    entered   the    scene,    the    character   he    assumed   was 
visible  in  his  countenance ;  the  power  of  his  imagination  was  such,  that  he 
transformed  himself  into  the  very  man ;   the  passions   rose  in   rapid  suc- 
cession, and,  before  he  uttered  a  word,  were  legible  in  every  feature  of 
that  various  face.     His  look,  his  voice,  his  attitude,   changed  with  every 
sentiment.  .  .  .  The  rage  and  rapidity  with  which  he  spoke, 
The  North !    what  do  they  in  the  North, 
When  they  should  serve  their  Sovereign  in  the  West? 

made  a  most  astonishing  impression  on  the  audience.  His  soliloquy  in  the 
tent  scene  discovered  the  inner  man.  .  .  .  When  he  started  from  his  dream, 
he  was  a  spectacle  of  horror :  He  called  out  in  a  manly  tone. 

Give  me  another  horse ; 

He  paused,  and  with  a  countenance  of  dismay,  advanced,  crying  out  in  a 
tone  of  distress, 

Bind  up  my  wounds ; 

and  then,  falling  on  his  knees,  said  in  the  most  piteous  accent, 

Have  mercy  Heaven ; 

In  all  this  the  audience  saw  an  exact  imitation  of  nature.  .  .  .  When  in 
Bosworth  field,  he  roared  out, 

A  horse  !    a  horse  !    my  kingdom  for  a  horse  ! 

All  was  rage,  fury,  and  almost  reality.  ...  It  is  no  wonder  that  an  actor 
thus  accomplished  made,  on  the  very  first  night,  a  deep  impression  on  the 
audience.  His  fame  ran  through  the  metropolis.  The  public  went  in 

8  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  David  Garrick,  Esq.,  Interspersed  with  Char- 
acters and  Anecdotes  of  His  Theatrical  Contemporaries,  The  Whole  forming 
a  history  of  the  Stage,  whch  includes  a  period  of  Thirty-six  Years.  By 
Thomas  Davies.  2  Vols.  London,  1780. 


104 

crowds  to   see   a  young  performer,   who   came   forth   at  once   a  complete 
master  of  his  art."* 

The  Dramatic  Censor  shows  Garrick's  physical  fitness  for 
the  part: 

"  The  Public  have  set  up  Mr.  Garrick  as  a  standard  of  perfection  in  this 
laborious,  difficult  part ;  and  if  we  consider  the  essentials,  his  claim  to  such 
distinction  will  immediately  appear  indisputable  ;  a  very  deformed  person 
never  rises  above,  and  seldom  up  to  the  middle  stature ;  it  is  generally 
attended  with  an  acuteness  of  features  and  sprightliness  of  eyes;  in  these 
three  natural  points  or  Roscius  stands  unexceptionable.  .  .  .  MR.  GAR- 
RICK  also  preserves  a  happy  medium,  and  dwindles  neither  into  the 
buffoon  or  brute ;  one  or  both  of  which  this  character  is  made  by  most 
performers." 

It  seems  then,  that  the  innovations  of  Garrick  that  called 
forth  Quin's  exclamation,  "  If  this  young  fellow  be  right,  then 
we  have  been  all  wrong,"  consisted  in  his  identifying  himself 
with  the  part  as  the  actors  of  the  heroic,  traditional  school 
never  did,  his  abandonment  of  the  "  demi-chant,"  and  his 
spontaneity  and  freedom  of  deportment.  Among  the  scenes 
which  took  the  popular  favor  were  the  one  in  Baynard  Castle 
when,  with  an  expressive  gesture,  he  threw  the  prayer-book 
from  him  after  the  Lord  Mayor  had  retired,5  the  tent  scene, 
much  talked  of,  and  painted  by  Hogarth,  and  the  death 
scene,  Garrick  being  noted  for  acting  such  situations  effec- 
tively. In  these  scenes  he  freed  the  interpretation  of  Richard 
from  the  conventional  delineation  of  the  "  wicked  tyrant  "  who 
was  savage  and  furious,  and  nothing  else.  But  in  these  char- 
acteristics he  was  not  unheralded.  We  have  seen  that  Ryan's 
sincere  and  vigorous  acting  had  suggested  much  to  Garrick, 
and  as  early  as  1725,  Macklin,  a  young  Irish  actor,  had  tried 
to  introduce  a  more  natural  style  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  but 
had  been  discharged  in  consequence  for  trespassing  upon  the 
hard  and  fast  traditions  of  the  theatre.6  But  Macklin  only 

4  The  Dramatic  Censor;  or  Critical  Companion.  2  Vols.  London,  1770. 
Essay  on  Richard  the  Third,  As  Altered  from  Shakespeare  by  Cibber, 
page  ii. 

6  It  is  noted  by  Fitzgerald  as  a  favorite  action  at  this  time  with  the 
ladies  and  gentlemen  of  the  stage,  when  interrupted  in  reading,  to  throw 
their  books  into  a  brook  or  side  scene. 

8  It  was  Macklin  who  rescued  Shylock  from  low  comedy,  and  who,  at  the 
very  end  of  his  career,  had  the  courage  to  appear  in  Macbeth  in  Highland 


105 

suggested  what  Garrick  made  of  practical  effect,  and  it  is, 
therefore,  from  him  that  we  date  the  revival  and  maintenance 
of  natural  methods. 

Garrick  played  Richard  seventeen  times  during  the  season 
at  Goodman's  Fields,  and  then  after  a  summer  in  Dublin,  en- 
gaged for  the  next  year  at  Drury  Lane,  where  he  continued 
for  almost  the  whole  of  his  career.  During  the  next  season, 
at  Drury  Lane,  Richard  was  performed  fourteen  times,  six 
of  these  being  by  Garrick.7  In  1744-5,  Garrick  played  Rich- 
ard four  times;  in  1745-6  no  bills  with  Garrick  as  Richard 
appear,  but  the  part  was  taken  by  new  actors.  In  the  follow- 
ing seasons  he  appeared  three  or  four  times  in  the  character, 
until  in  1761-2  there  seems  to  have  been  a  revival  of  interest 
in  the  play,  when  Garrick  and  Mossop  shared  the  part.  This 
continued  for  several  seasons,  but  with  the  appearance  of  new 
names  such  as  Sheridan,  Smith,  and  Holland,  Garrick's  ap- 
pearances in  Richard  became  rarer,  until  his  last  on  June  5, 
I776.8 

During  these  twenty-five  years  the  play  had  had  a  brilliant 
history.  It  was  constantly  used,  was  a  favorite  for  benefits, 
was  chosen  for  the  Theatrical  Fund  performances,  and 
was  early  found  in  the  provincial  theatres.  While  Gar- 
rick was  by  all  means  the  leading  Richard,  the  part  was 
constantly  presented  at  the  other  theatres  by  Quin,  Ryan,  and 
Sheridan.  An  interesting  contest  took  place  in  1746  at  Covent 
Garden,  when  an  agreement  was  made  by  which  Garrick  and 

dress,  instead  of  in  the  scarlet  coat,  silver-laced  waistcoat,  and  wig  and 
knee-breeches,  in  favor  with  Garrick,  and  in  which  he  appears  in  Zoffany's 
portrait.  Barry,  a  contemparary  of  Garrick,  played  Othello  "  in  a  full  suit 
of  gold-laced  scarlet,  a  small  cocked  hat,  knee-breeches,  and  silk  stockings." 
His  wife  was  "  clad  in  the  fascinating  costume  of  Italy."  Thos.  Goodwin, 
Sketches  and  Impressions,  Musical,  Theatrical  and  Social,  1709-1885.  New 
York,  1887.  This  is  given  on  the  authority  of  one  Fred.  Reynods,  who 
had  seen  Garrick. 

1  This  season  is  memorable  for  Peg  "yVoffington's  first  appearance  as  Anne. 

8  In  regard  to  his  retirement,  Genest.Vsays :  "  He  was  for  some  time  in- 
clined to  end  his  course  with  the'  part  he  at  first  set  out  with ;  but  upon 
consideration  he  judged,  that, 'after  the  fatigue  of  so  laborious  a  character 
as  Richard,  it  would  be  ouf  pf  his  power  to  utter  a  farewell  word  to  the 
audience  ...  he  therefore  chose  Don  Felix  (Murphy)  ...  as 
being  less  fatiguing."  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  V,  pages  497-8. 


106 

Quin  appeared  on  alternate  nights  in  "  Richard  the  Third." 
It  was  a  definite  pitting  of  the  old  against  the  new,  the  tra- 
ditional against  the  natural  and  spontaneous,  and  while  the 
Richard  of  Garrick  drew  a  crowded  house,  that  of  Quin  gained 
little  attention.9  Quin  before  this  had  carried  on  a  stirring 
rivalry  at  Covent  Garden,  and  later,  on  October  29,  1774, 
"  Richard  the  Third  "  was  played  at  both  houses  on  the  same 
evening.  At  the  time  of  Garrick's  retirement  from  the  stage 
in  1776,  the  Richards  of  the  day  were  E.  T.  Smith  and  Hen- 
derson at  Drury  Lane,  and  Thomas  Sheridan  at  Covent  Gar- 
den. Smith  was  "  most  mediocre,"  rosy- faced,  drowsy,  level- 
toned,  a  Richard  beyond  comprehension.  Henderson  sup- 
ported to  the  best  of  his  considerable  second-rate  abilities  the 
Garrick  tradition  from  1779  to  1785,  when  he  was  the  leading 
attraction  at  Covent  Garden,  and  was  considered  Garrick's 
successor.  Other  actors  of  Garrick's  time  who  gained  some 
reputation  in  the  character  of  Richard  the  Third  were  Spran- 
ger  Barry,10  renowned  for  his  wonderfully  musical  voice,  and 
Mossop,  who  played  frequently  during  Garrick's  connection 
with  Drury  Lane,  but  for  the  most  part  in  the  years  after 
Garrick's  first  achievements  in  this  part.11  There  were  also  a 
number  of  incidental  actors  as  Good  fellow,  Reddish,  Murphy, 
and  Macklin,  who  at  the  advanced  age  of  eighty-five  undertook 
the  part  of  Richard  and  played  it  four  times,  a  remarkable 
achievement,  even  though  the  performance  was  called  "  hard 
and  harsh." 

At  Garrick's  first  performance,  the  part  of  Queen  Elizabeth 
was  taken  by  Mrs.  Steel  and  Lady  Anne  by  Mrs.  Giffard,  but 
at  Drury  Lane  Mrs.  Pritchard  usually  took  the  part  of  the 

8  Davies,  quoted  by  Genest,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  IV,  page  209. 

10  In  the  wooing  of  Anne,  Barry  was  considered  superior  to  Garrick,  the 
tone  of  his  voice  being  described  as  "  happily  insinuating,"  and  his  manner 
as  "  perfectly  engaging." 

11  The  Dramatic  Censor  says  of  some  of  these  competitors :  "  Mr.  Mossop 
displays  great  powers,  Mr.  Sheridan  much  judgment,  and  Mr.  Smith  con- 
siderable  spirit ;    but   had   the   first   more   delicacy,   with    less   labour ;    the 
second   more  harmony,  and  less  stiffness ;   the  third  more  variation,   with 
less  levity,  their  merit  would  rise  several  degrees  beyond  what  it  is."    Pages 
12-13. 


107 

Queen,  and  Peg  Woffington  appears  frequently  as  Lady  Anne 
from  1743  until  about  1750,  when  she  went  to  Covent  Garden, 
and  the  part  was  taken  by  Mrs.  Davies.  In  1776,  Mrs.  Siddons 
played  Lady  Anne  twice  to  Garrick's  Richard.12  At  Covent 
Garden,  with  Quin  and  Ryan,  Mrs.  Horton  appears  usually 
as  Queen  Elizabeth,  though  Mrs.  Pritchard  was  there  for  a 
time,  and  Mrs.  Gibber  played  both  this  part  and  Lady  Anne 
occasionally. 

The  after-play  was  used  throughout  this  period,13  one  of 
the  most  interesting  being  that  given  at  Covent  Garden  on 
February  13,  1738,  "  The  Winter's  Tale  "  under  the  title  of 
"  The  Sheep-shearing."  In  1761,  first  at  Covent  Garden,  the 
introduction  of  the  Coronation  spectacle  became  popular  with 
all  plays  that  would  admit  of  it,  and  this  was  used  frequently 
with  "  Richard  the  Third  "  in  1762-3,  1766  and  I76o,.14  The 
play  was  supplied  with  an  epilogue,  at  least  once,  on  June  2, 
1772,  when  it  was  performed  for  the  Theatrical  Fund.15 

Between  the  age  of  Betterton  and  that  of  Garrick,  threatrical 
conditions  had  made  no  great  advance,  and  not  until  the  later 
years  of  Garrick's  management  do  we  find  the  beginning  of  the 
revolution  in  staging  which  foreshadowed  the  work  of  Charles 
Kean  and  Irving.  In  Garrick's  day  the  house  was  still  com- 
paratively dark  even  after  his  innovation  of  illuminating  the 
stage  by  lights  behind  the  proscenium,  invisible  to  the  audience, 
for  he  was  hampered  by  the  absence  of  a  light  like  gas.  The 
scene-shifting  was  noisy  and  clumsy,  and  the  scenery  had  little 

12  The  story  is  often  repeated  which  gives  Mrs.  Siddons'  opinion  of 
Garrick's  Richard.  Sheridan  remarked  that  it  was  not  terrible  enough, 
when  Mrs.  Siddons  replied :  "  What  could  be  more  terrible  ?  In  one  scene 
I  was  so  much  overcome  by  the  fearful  expression  on  his  face  that  I  forgot 
my  instructions.  I  was  recalled  to  myself  by  a  look  of  reproof,  which  I 
never  remember  without  a  tremor." 

18  It  is  to  be  noted  as  a  tribute  to  Garrick's  unrivaled  drawing  power  in 
Richard,  that  the  after-farce  seems  not  to  have  been  used  when  he  played, 
as  it  was  frequently  when  Mossop,  Smith,  or  others  took  the  part. 

14  Genest  speaking  of  Covent  Garden,  says :  "  The  Coronation  at  this 
theatre  was  tacked  only  to  appropriate  plays,  not  to  plays  with  which  it 
had  no  connection,  as  at  Drury  Lane."  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  IV,  page  654. 

16  Genest,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  V,  page  327. 


108 

effect  in  the  dim  background  of  the  stage.  It  was  used  too, 
with  little  intelligence,  the  setting  being  often  a  hodge-podge 
of  odds  and  ends,16  without  regard  to  their  fitness  for  the 
setting  desired.  In  1772,  however,  Garrick  engaged  the  young 
Alsatian  artist,  De  Loutherbourg,  as  scene  painter,  and  thus 
prepared  the  way  for  the  improvements  of  the  latter  part  of  the 
century.  Although  De  Loutherbourg's  work  for  Drury  Lane 
began  at  the  very  end  of  Garrick's  management,  in  these  last 
years  "  Richard  the  Third  "  was  frequently  given  and  in  the 
Irving  collection  of  designs  made  by  this  artist,  there  are  three 
for  scenes  on  Bosworth  Field.  These,  with  the  introduction 
of  "  raking  "  scenes,  practicable  bridges,  gauze  curtains  for  at- 
mospheric effects,  and  ingenious  devices  for  simulating  sounds, 
show  how  great  must  have  been  the  change  in  the  character 
of  the  last  scenes.17 

Throughout  the  period  great  regard  for  costume,  so  far  as 
richness  of  effect  was  concerned,  persisted,  but  little  was  done 
for  its  propriety,  as  the  portraits  of  the  time  show.  In  Ho- 
garth's portrait  of  Garrick  as  Richard  the  Third  the  dress  is 
Elizabethan,18  with  trunks  and  hose,  ruffs  at  neck  and  wrists, 
and  the  short  sleeveless  fur-edged  coat,  showing  the  puffed 
sleeves  of  the  tunic.  This  costume  is  probably  the  traditional 
one  from  the  Shakespearian  stage,  and  leads  one  to  believe  that 
Richard,  even  in  Gibber's  personation,  never  appeared  in  con- 
temporary dress,  whatever  the  minor  characters  may  have 
done.  Davies  remarks  that  "  Richard  the  Third  "  and  "  Henry 
the  Eighth  "  were  distinguished  by  the  two  principal  characters 
being  dressed  with  propriety,19  though  different  from  all  the 

18 "  The  memory  of  no  very  aged  persons  may  present,  if  closely  urged, 
some  not  very  brilliant  impression  of  the  miserable  pairs  of  flats  that 
used  to  clap  together  on  even  the  stage  trodden  by  Mr.  Garrick ;  archi- 
tecture without  selection  or  propriety ;  a  hall,  a  castle,  or  a  chamber ;  or  a 
cut  wood  of  which  all  the  verdure  seemed  to  have  been  washed  away." 
James  Boaden,  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  John  Philip  Kemble,  page  xiv. 

1T  On  the  work  of  De  Loutherbourg,  see  The  Pioneers  of  Modern  Eng- 
lish Stage-Mounting:  Phillipe  Jacques  de  Loutherbourg,  R.  A.,  by  W.  J. 
Lawrence.  Magazine  of  Art,  Vol.  18  (1895). 

18  See  Racinet,  Le  Costume  Historique,  for  proof  of  this. 

19  Quoted  by  R.  W.  Lowe  in  Life  of  Betterton,  page  55. 


109 

rest;  and  this  seems  to  have  been  true  throughout  Garrick's 
management.20  Whether  Davies  by  "  propriety  "  meant  that 
he  thought  that  Richard  was  in  the  dress  of  the  fifteenth 
century  is  not  clear,  but  his  archeological  knowledge  as  to  the 
proper  costume  of  that  time,  was  probably  not  in  advance  of 
that  of  his  contemporaries.21  The  Dramatic  Censor  comments 
upon  the  subject: 

"  However  historical  relation  admits  doubts  of  that  monarch's  personal 
deformity,  it  was  certainly  well  judged  to  make  his  external  appearance  on 
the  stage,  emblematic  of  his  mind ;  and  for  the  sake  of  singularity  dressing 
him  only  in  the  habit  of  the  times  may  be  defensible ;  but  what  excuse 
can  be  made  for  shewing  him,  at  his  first  entrance,  in  as  elegant  a  dress  as 
when  king,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  suggest;  does  he  not,  after  his  scene  with 
Lady  Anne,  profess  a  design  of  ornamenting  his  person  more  advan- 
tageously? Macbeth,  when  king,  is  always  distinguished  by  a  second  dress, 
why  not  Richard?  a  still  greater  breach  of  propriety  appears  in  putting 
mourning  upon  none  of  the  persons  of  the  court  but  the  ladies  and  children ; 
though  Richard  pays  all  other  external  respect  to  the  circumstances  of  his 
brother's  death."22 

After  Gar  rick,  the  next  great  actor  to  essay  this  character 
was  John  Philip  Kemble  in  1783,  and  with  him  an  entirely 
different  conception  of  the  part  was  inaugurated.  Kemble's 
biographer,  in  speaking  of  Henderson  who  conscientiously 
carried  on  the  tradition  of  Garrick,  and  comparing  him  with 
Kemble,  says: 

"  The  high-erected  deportment,  the  expressive  action,  the  solemn  cadence, 
the  stately  pauses  of  that  original  tragedian,  Kemble,  with  the  magic  of 
countenance  and  form  to  bear  up  his  style,  have  by  degrees  won  us  from 
the  school  of  ease  and  freedom  and  variety  and  warmth,  and  all  the  ming- 
ling proprieties  of  humour  and  pathos,  as  Shakspeare  founded  it,  and  as 
it  was  taught  by  the  professor  whom  I  have  just  named.  The  styles 
were  certainly  incompatible  with  each  other.  .  .  .  The  declamation 
of  Mr.  Kemble  seemed  to  be  fetched  from  the  schools  of  philosophy — it 
was  always  pure  and  correct." 

80  See  Boaden,  op.  cit.,  page  184. 

21  In  Fitzgerald's  History  of  the  Stage  the  same  mistake  is  made  in  regard 
to  Richard's  dress  at  this  time :  "  King  Richard's  troops  appear  in  the  uni- 
forms of  the  soldiers  in  St.  James's  Park  with  short  jackets  and  cocked-up 
hats.      King   Richard,   indeed,   wears   the   dress   of  his   time,   but  not  so 
Richmond ;  while  the  Bishop  is  stiffened  into  reformers'  lawn  sleeves,  with 
trencher-cap  and  tassel "  (Page  234-5). 

22  Dramatic  Censor,  page  10. 


110 

To  show  the  principle  on  which  the  "  most  scientific  "  actor 
worked,  he  quotes  from  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds : 

"  I  must  observe  that  even  the  expression  of  violent  passion  is  not 
always  the  most  excellent  in  proportion  as  it  is  the  most  natural ;  so  great 
terror  and  such  disagreeable  sensations  may  be  communicated  to  the  audi- 
ence that  the  balance  may  be  destroyed  by  which  pleasure  is  preserved, 
and  holds  its  predominancy  in  the  mind ;  violent  distortion  of  action,  harsh 
screamings  of  the  voice,  however  great  the  occasion,  or  however  natural  on 
such  occasion,  are,  therefore,  not  admissible  in  the  theatric  art.  Many 
of  these  allowed  deviations  from  nature  arise  from  the  necessity  which 
there  is  that  everything  should  be  raised  and  enlarged  beyond  its  natural 
state ;  that  the  full  effect  may  come  home  to  the  spectator,  which  other- 
wise would  be  lost  in  the  comparatively  extensive  space  of  the  theatre. 
Hence  the  deliberate  and  stately  step,  the  studied  grace  of  action,  which 
seems  to  enlarge  the  dimensions  of  the  actor,  and  alone  to  fill  the  stage."21 

This  is,  therefore,  the  great  classical  period  in  the  history 
of  the  play  of  "  Richard  the  Third,"  when  the  canons  of 
Reynolds  in  art,  and  the  conceptions  of  the  classicists  in  litera- 
ture found  histrionic  expression  in  the  school  of  Kemble.24 

Kemble  played  Richard  from  1783  to  1802  at  Drury  Lane, 
and  at  Covent  Garden  from  that  time  to  his  retirement  in 
1817.  At  the  latter  theatre  he  for  a  time,  *.  e.,  until  1810, 
took  the  part  of  Richmond  to  the  Richard  of  George  Fred- 
erick Cooke.  Cooke,  indeed,  was  Kemble's  great  rival  in  this 
play,  and  his  appearance  at  Covent  Garden,  where  he  played 
Richard  over  twenty  times  during  his  first  season,  caused  a 
great  .sensation.  Dunlap,  the  biographer t of  Cooke,  says  of 
his  acting  in  this  part :  "  His  superiority  over  all  others,  in  the 
confident  dissimulation,  the  crafty  hypocrisy,  and  the  bitter 
sarcasm  of  the  character,  is  acknowledged  by  every  writer  who 
has  criticised  his  acting.  .  .  .  His  triumph  in  this  character 
was  so  complete,  that  after  a  struggle,  Mr.  Kemble  resigned  it 
altogether  to  him."25 

28  Boaden,  op.  cit.,  page  102. 

*An  analysis  of  Kemble's  acting  by  Leigh  Hunt  is  given  in  his  Critical 
Essays  on  the  Performers  of  the  London  Theatres. 

25  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  George  Frederick  Cooke,  Esquire,  Late  of  the 
Theatre  Royal,  Covent  Garden.  Vol.  I,  pages  147-8.  Cooke  used  Roach's 
1802  edition  of  Richard  the  Third,  but  inserted  the  four  opening  lines  from 
Shakespeare  in  Richard's  first  speech  and  a  few  lines  in  his  last  speech 
in  Act  IV. 


Ill 

But  Cooke  left  for  America  in  1810,  and  Kemble  was  with- 
out a  rival  until  Kean's  appearance  four  years  later.  During 
all  these  years  Mrs.  Siddons  appeared  frequently  as  Elizabeth 
with  her  brother,  and  gained  here,  as  everywhere,  praise  for 
her  interpretation  of  the  part.  Mrs.  Powell  and  Mrs.  Ward, 
two  of  the  best  known  actresses  of  the  day,  also  became 
identified  with  the  parts  of  the  Queen  and  Lady  Anne. 

While  contemporary  critics  agree  that  Richard  was  not  one 
of  Kemble's  great  parts,  yet  in  his  staging  and  revision  of  the 
play  he  influenced  its  history  considerably.  Describing  the 
conditions  when  Kemble  began  his  work  in  this  line,  Boaden 
says :  "  The  old  scenery  exhibited  architecture  of  no  period, 
and  excited  little  attention  .  .  .  nothing  could  be  less  accurate, 
or  more  dirty,  than  the  usual  pairs  of  low  flats  that  were  hur- 
ried together,  to  denote  the  locality  of  the  finest  dialogue  that 
human  genius  ever  composed."26  When  new  Drury  Lane  was 
built  in  1794,  Kemble  engaged  William  Capon,  a  man  well 
known  for  his  antiquarian  labors,  as  "  scenic  director  "  for 
the  new  theatre.  This  was  the  beginning  of  a  brilliant  era  of 
new  methods  of  staging  the  older  drama.  Kemble,  like  Mack- 
lin  before  him,  had  made  an  abortive  attempt  at  "  correct " 
staging  and  costume  in  his  early  days,  and  again  in  the  revival 
of  "Henry  the  Eighth"  at  Drury  Lane  in  1788;  but  with 
Capon,  definite  antiquarian  research  became  a  part  of  the 
theatrical  business.27 

The  new  Drury  Lane  had  such  a  large  stage  that  none  of 
the  old  scenery  and  few  of  the  properties  could  be  used,  and 
this  gave  an  unusual  opportunity  to  Capon  to  bring  into  use 
harmonious  and  correct  settings  for  the  plays.  It  now  became 
the  fashion  to  lavish  vast  sums  on  the  revivals  of  old  plays; 
when  the  theatre  opened  with  "  Macbeth,"  in  1794,  "  so  pro- 
fuse was  the  wealth  of  adjuncts  in  the  banquet  scene  that  the 
novelty  was  spoken  of  as  '  a  thing  to  go  to  see  of  itself/  >:  To 
meet  the  expense  of  this  splendor  the  after-piece  was  omitted, 

**Op.  cit.,  page  158. 

27  The  work  of  Capon  is  described  in  an  article  by  W.  J.  Lawrence 
in  the  Magazine  of  Art,  1895,  on  Pioneers  of  Modern  English  Stage 
Mounting:  William  Capon. 


112 

and  all  the  money  and  labor  were  put  upon  the  main  feature 
of  the  evening.  A  list  of  Capon's  most  successful  scenes 
include  some  of  interest  here  :28 

Six  wings,  representing  ancient  English  streets;  combina- 
tions of  genuine  remains,  selected  on  account  of  their  pictur- 
esque beauty. 

The  tower  of  London,  restored  to  its  earlier  state,  for  the 
play  of  "  King  Richard  the  Third." 

Six  chamber  wings,  of  the  same  order  (i.  e.,  pointed  archi- 
tecture), for  general  use  in  our  old  English  plays — very  elab- 
orately studied  from  actual  remains.29 

When  Kemble  became  manager  of  new  Co  vent  Garden  in 
1809,  he  there  carried  on  these  archeological  reforms,  and  the 
house  became  noted  for  truthful  and  uniform  Shakespearian 
revivals.30  Added  to  his  efforts  for  greater  splendor  of  pro- 
duction, Kemble  exerted  his  influence  beneficially  in  endeavor- 
ing to  curb  the  desire  of  performers  to  play  always  great 
characters,  and  to  get  them  to  concur  cheerfully  in  such  a  cast 
as  should  exhibit  the  full  strength  of  the  company,  and  do  the 
utmost  justice  to  the  ideas  of  the  poet.  Kemble  illustrated  his 
policy  by  appearing  with  Cooke  in  the  season  of  1803  at  Covent 
Garden  as  Richmond  to  Cooke's  Richard.81 

28  Boaden,  op.  cit.,  pages  316-7. 

"Another  scene,  interesting  because. of  its  use  in  a  related  play  of  the 
time  is  "  The  Council  chamber  of  Crosby  House,  for  Jane  Shore — a  correct 
restoration  of  pristine  state  of  the  apartment  so  far  as  could  be  deduced 
from  documentary  evidence."  Given  by  W.  J.  Lawrence,  in  the  article 
on  William  Capon,  cited  above,  page  290. 

80  The  same  kind  of  work  had  been  going  on  at  Covent  Garden  before 
Kemble's   management,   under   Inigo    Richards.      Old   Covent    Garden   had 
burned  down  on  September  20,   1808.     A  description  of  the  new  building 
is  given  Boaden,  op.  cit.,  pages  533-4. 

81  During  this  period  the  play  appeared  with  such  added  attractions  as 
Blue  Beard,  a  splendid  show  with  real  elephants,  as  an  after  piece.     In 
1805   and  again  in   1806,   Master  Betty,   aged  fourteen  years,   "the  tenth 
wonder   of   the   world,"   an   "  infant   Roscius,"    appeared    as    Richard    the 
Third.    He  had  played  in  London  since  1804,  appeared  with  the  best  actors 
of  the  day  such  as  Cooke,  Kemble,  and  Mrs.  Siddons,  and  drew  enormous 
crowds.    In  1813,  Betty,  then  a  man,  again  essayed  the  part  of  Richard,  but 
with  poor  success,  and  was  not  offered  another  engagement.    At  Bath,  how- 


113 

We  find  therefore,  by  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, that  "  Richard  the  Third "  was  thoroughly  changed 
in  setting,  but  that  the  play-book  of  the  eighteenth  century 
still  held  the  stage.  In  1810,  Kemble  published  a  revision  of 
Gibber's  alteration,  but  the  principal  change  consisted  in  short- 
ening it,32  resulting  in  the  omission  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty-six  and  a  half  lines,  and  the  addition  from  Shakespeare 
of  four  and  a  half  lines  with  one  and  a  half  of  his  own. 
From  Shakespeare  he  restored  the  lines  at  the  beginning  of 
Richard's  first  speech,  curiously  omitted  by  Gibber  since  they 
connect  this  play  so  definitely  with  the  series  concerned  with 
Henry  the  Sixth: 

Now  is  the  winter  of  our  discontent ; 
Made  glorious  summer  by  this  sun  of  York ; 
And  all  the  clouds  that  lour'd  upon  our  house 
In  the  deep  bosom  of  the  ocean  buried. 

The  scenes  in  which  the  greatest  excisions  were  made  are 
Act  III,  Scene  2,  where  sixteen  lines  are  taken  from  Lady 
Anne's  speech  on  the  unhappiness  of  her  marriage,  and  twenty- 
six  lines  from  the  scene  in  Baynard  Castle ;  and  Act  IV,  Scene 
4,  where  Richard's  solicitation  of  Elizabeth  is  shortened  by 
seventeen  lines.  The  character  of  Sir  William  Brandon  he 
substituted  for  Tressel.  There  are  more  frequent  changes  and 
greater  variety  of  scene.  Thus,  in  the  first  act,  Scene  I  is  in 
the  Tower  Garden,  but  for  Richard's  entrance  a  change  is 
made  to  the  court-yard  of  the  Tower ;  in  Act  III,  a  new  setting 
is  given  to  the  interview  with  Lady  Anne ;  in  Act  IV,  Richard 

ever,  he  drew  good  audiences  for  a  number  of  years.     Byron  refers  to  this 
vogue  contemptuously  in  English  Bards  and  Scotch  Reviewers  thus, 
Though  now,  thank  Heaven !  the  Rosciomania's  o'er, 
And  full:grown  actors  are  endured  once  more. 

In  1812,  Comus  was  given  with  Richard  the  Third  as  an  after  piece. 
It  had  figured  in  the  Jubilee  Pageant  in  1785  and  later,  with  Kemble  as 
Richard,  and  imitators,  such  as  Carey,  Charles  Matthews,  and  Yates  had 
found  it  a  favorite,  subject  for  impersonations  of  leading  actors. 

82  "J.  P.  Kemble  revised  Gibber's  alteration  of  Richard  the  3d — but 
'  damned  custom  had  braz'd  him  so,  that  he  was  proof  and  bulwark  against 
sense' — he  digested  the  cold  mutton,  and  even  the  spiders  crawling  upon 
hopes  did  not  startle  him."  Genest,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  VIII,  page  233. 

9 


114 

speaks  his  soliloquy  during  the  murder  of  the  princes,  in  a 
"  gallery  in  the  Tower,"  and  the  mourning  women  meet  him 
at  "  the  city-gates."  There  is  also  indication  of  more  elabora- 
tion of  details,  as  the  tolling  of  the  bell  during  the  funeral  pro- 
cession, while  here  Lady  Anne  and  the  procession  enter,  a 
change  from  the  "  dicovered  "  scene  of  Gibber,  but  which  gave 
scope  to  Kemble's  love  of  display,  and  an  opportunity  for  the 
exercise  of  that  archeological  exactness  upon  which  he  prided 
himself.  Martial  music  and  flourishes  are  more  frequently 
called  for,  and  Richmond's  victory  is  emphasized  by  the  re- 
moval of  Richard's  body  to  the  sound  of  trumpets,  and  the 
tableau  at  the  end  with  all  kneeling  and  shouting, 

Long  live  Henry  the  Seventh,  King  of  England ! 

But  the  changes,  it  is  seen,  are  so  slight  that  no  essential  differ- 
ence is  made  in  plan  or  conception,  even  in  details.  These 
however,  met  with  favor,  and  appear  with  little  variation  in 
the  best  known  editions  from  prompt-books  of  the  time,  Inch- 
bald's  ."  British  Theatre"  (i8o6-o,),83  and  Oxberry's  "New 
English  Drama"  (i8i8).84 

It  was  this  modified  version  of  Gibber's  "  Richard  the 
Third  "  that  was  used  by  the  next  and  most  renowned  Richard 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  Edmund  Kean.  He  appeared  in 
London  in  1814,  three  years  before  Kemble's  retirement,  and 
after  his  presentation  of  Richard  the  Third  at  his  second  ap- 
pearance, the  city  rang  with  his  fame,  and  Drury  Lane,  which 
had  been  seriously  declining,  became  once  more  theatrically 
important.  Byron,  who  was  in  London  at  this  time,  after  see- 
ing Kean,  wrote  in  His  diary,  "  Just  returned  from  seeing 
Kean  in  Richard.  By  Jove !  he  is  a  soul !  Life,  nature,  truth, 
without  exaggeration  or  diminution.  Richard  is  a  man,  and 

83  Volume  1 7.  Mrs.  Inchbald,  whose  text  was  evidently  taken  from  the 
prompt-book  before  publication,  records  some  changes  in  setting.  Thus 
Richard  soliloquizes  in  the  presence-chamber  during  the  murder  of  the 
princes,  and  Richmond's  tent  and  the  single  encounters  between  Richard 
and  Richmond  are  placed  in  a  wood.  Neither  in  this  edition  nor  in 
Oxberry's  is  Tressel  dropped  from  the  characters  in  favor  of  Sir  William 
Brandon. 

"Volume  3. 


115 

Kean  is  Richard."35  Coleridge  said  it  was  like  "  reading 
Shakespeare  by  flashes  of  lightning."  The  newspapers  took 
pleasure  in  noting  the  resemblance  of  his  name  to  that  of  Le 
Kain,  the  great  actor  of  France  who  had  displaced  a  conven- 
tional, studied  method  of  acting  for  one  natural  and  lively. 
Like  Garrick,  the  greatest  Richard  among  his  predecessors, 
Kean  was  short  and  eminently  fitted  in  face  and  form  for  the 
part ;  he  was  called  "  the  great  little  man,"  had  a  face  of  won- 
derful expressiveness  with  piercing  eyes,  remarkable  energy  in 
his  movements  and  great  versatility.  He  recalled  the  best  days 
of  Garrick,  with  more  of  recklessness,  less  of  order  in  his  per- 
formance. Epithets  such  as  Dumas'  "  Desordre  et  Genie  "36 
were  freely  applied  to  this  surprising  person.  J.  P.  Kemble 
said  when  asked  his  opinion,  "  Our  styles  of  acting  are  so 
totally  different,  that  you  must  not  expect  me  to  like  Mr. 
Kean;  but  one  thing  I  must  say  in  his  favor — he  is  at  all 
times  terribly  in  earnest."37 

Kean's  acting,  after  the  classicism  of  Kemble  and  the 
"  butcher-like  representation  "  of  which  Lamb  complained  in 
Cooke's  performance  of  Richard,38  seemed  to  realize  the  richer, 
more  complex  and  subtle  conception  of  Richard's  character 
held  by  such  critics  as  Hazlitt,  Coleridge  and  Lamb.  I  can 
do  no  better  than  to  quote  in  full  the  most  elaborate  criticism 
of  the  play  that  came  from  these  later  critics. 

85 Detached  Thoughts,  Volume  V,  page  437  (ed.  1821-2).  Byron  says 
further :  "  Of  actors,  Cooke  was  the  most  natural,  Kemble  the  most  super- 
natural, Kean  a  medium  between  the  two,  but  Mrs.  Siddons  worth  them  all 
put  together,  of  those  whom  I  remember  to  have  seen  in  England."  An- 
other poet,  Keats,  devoted  two  of  his  very  few  prose  pieces  to  Kean's 
acting.  In  The  Champion,  December,  1817,  he  praises  his  "intense  power 
of  anatomizing  the  passions  of  every  syllable,  of  taking  to  himself  the 
airings  of  verse."  Keats'  Works,  ed.  H.  B.  Forman,  Vol.  Ill,  page  5. 

86  Dumas,  drama,  Kean,  ou  Desorde  et  Genie,  was  produced  at  the  Porte 
Saint-Martin  in  1836. 

81  Boaden,  op.  cit.,  page  569. 

88  On  the  Tragedies  of  Shakespeare,  London,  1855.  Kean  said  of  him- 
self, "  I  have  got  Cooke's  style  in  acting,  but  the  public  will  never  know 
it,  I^am  so  much  smaller."  Quoted  by  Mr.  William  Winter  in  Shadows  of 
the  Stage,  page  75. 


116 

"  It  is  possible  to  form  a  higher  conception  of  the  character  of  Richard 
than  that  given  by  Mr  Kean  (not  from  seeing  any  other  actor,  but  from 
reading  Shakespeare)  ;  but  we  cannot  imagine  any  character  represented 
with  greater  distinctness  and  precision,  more  perfectly  articulated  in 
every  part.  .  .  .  He  is  more  refined  than  Cooke ;  more  bold,  varied,  and 
original  than  Kemble  in  the  same  character.  In  some  parts  he  is  deficient 
in  dignity,  and,  particularly  in  the  scenes  of  state  business,  he  has  by  no 
means  an  air  of  artificial  authority.  There  is  at  times  a  sort  of  tip-toe 
elevation,  an  enthusiastic  rapture  in  his  expectations  of  attaining  the  crown, 
and  at  others  a  gloating  expression  of  sullen  delight,  as  if  he  already 
clenched  the  bauble,  and  held  it  in  his  grasp.  This  was  the  precise  ex- 
pression which  Mr.  Kean  gave  with  so  much  effect  to  the  part  where  he 
says,  that  he  already  feels  '  The  golden  rigol  bind  his  brows.'  In  one 
who  dares  so  much,  there  is  indeed  little  to  blame.  The  courtship  scene 
with  Lady  Anne  is  an  admirable  exhibition  of  smooth  and  smiling  villainy. 
The  progress  of  wily  adulation,  of  encroaching  humility,  is  finely  marked 
by  his  action,  voice  and  eye.  He  seems,  like  the  first  Tempter,  to  ap- 
proach his  prey,  secure  of  the  event,  and  as  if  success  had  smoothed  his 
way  before  him.  Mr.  Cooke's  manner  of  representing  this  scene  was 
more  vehement,  hurried,  and  full  of  anxious  uncertainty.  This  though 
more  natural  in  general,  was  less  in  character  in  this  particular  instance. 
Richard  should  woo  not  as  a  lover  but  as  an  actor — to  show  his  mental 
superiority,  and  power  of  making  others  the  playthings  of  his  will.  Mr. 
Kean's  attitude  in  leaning  against  the  side  of  the  stage  before  he  comes 
forward  to  address  Lady  Anne,  is  one  of  the  most  graceful  and  striking 
ever  witnessed  on  the  stage.  It  would  have  done  for  Titian  to  paint. 
The  frequent  and  rapid  transition  of  his  voice  from  the  expression  of  the 
fiercest  passion  to  the  most  familiar  tones  of  conversation  was  that  which 
gave  a  peculiar  grace  of  novelty  to  his  acting  on  his  first  appearance. 
This  has  been  since  imitated  and  caricatured  by  others,  and  he  himself 
uses  the  artifice  more  sparingly  than  he  did.  His  bye-play  is  excellent. 
His  manner  of  bidding  his  friends  '  Good-night,'  after  pausing  with  the 
point  of  his  sword,  drawn  slowly  backward  and  forward  on  the  ground, 
as  if  considering  the  plan  of  the  battle  next  day,  is  a  particularly  happy 
and  natural  thought.  He  gives  to  the  two  last  acts  (sic?)  of  the  play  the 
greatest  animation  and  effect.  He  fills  every  part  of  the  stage ;  and  makes 
up  for  the  deficiency  of  his  person  by  what  has  been  sometimes  objected  to 
as  an  excess  of  action.  The  concluding  scene,  in  which  he  is  killed  by  Rich- 
mond is  the  most  brilliant  of  the  whole.  He  fights  at  last  like  one  drunk 
with  wounds ;  and  the  attitude  in  which  he  stands  with  his  hands  stretched 
out,  after  his  sword  is  wrested  from  him,  has  a  praeternatural  grandeur,  as 
if  his  will  could  not  be  disarmed,  and  the  very  phantoms  of  his  despair  had 
withering  power  to  kill."  M 

89  W.    Hazlit,    The    Characters    of    Shakespeare's    Plays,    pages    149-50 
(Phila.,  1854). 
G.  H.  Lewes,  who  was  greatly  impressed  by  Kean's  acting,  says  of  one 


117 

J.  F.  Molloy,  Kean's  biographer,  in  speaking  of  these  first 
performances,  mentions  some  of  the  scenes  in  which  he 
achieved  his  greatest  triumphs ;  his  power  of  conveying  "  the 
idea  of  rage  stifled  beneath  a  calm  exterior  "  when  taunted 
by  the  little  Duke  of  York;  his  exit  when  retiring  to  his  tent, 
said  by  the  critic  of  the  "  Morning  Post "  to  be  "  one  of  the 
finest  pieces  of  acting  we  have  ever  beheld,  or  perhaps  that  the 
stage  has  ever  known " ;  and  his  death  agony,  which,  the 
"  Examiner  "  is  quoted  as  remarking,  "  was  a  piece  of  noble 
poetry,  expressed  by  action  instead  of  language."40  He  tells 
how,  "  as  the  curtain  fell  the  audience  rose  as  one  man,  cheered 

scene,  "  He  had  no  gaiety ;  he  could  not  laugh ;  he  had  no  playfulness  that 
was  not  as  the  playfulness  of  a  panther  showing  her  claws  every  moment. 
Of  this  kind  was  the  gaiety  of  his  Richard  III.  Who  can  ever  forget 
the  exquisite  grace  with  which  he  leaned  against  the  side-scene  while  Anne 
was  railing  at  him,  and  the  chuckling  mirth  of  his  '  Poor  fool !  what  pains 
she  takes  to  damn  herself ! '  It  was  thoroughly  feline — terrible  yet 
beautiful."  On  Actors  and  the  Art  of  Acting,  London,  1875,  page  10. 

Genest,  who  did  not  like  Kean  and  seldom  says  anything  in  his  praise, 
notices  the  death  scene  particularly.  In  recording  Kean's  performance  at 
Bath,  July  14,  1815,  he  remarks,  "Richard  was  Kean's  best  part — but  he 
overdid  his  death — he  came  up  close  to  Richmond,  after  he  had  lost  his 
sword,  as  if  he  would  have  attacked  him  with  his  fists — Richmond,  to 
please  Kean,  was  obliged  to  stand  like  a  fool,  with  a  drawn  sword  in  his 
hand,  and  without  daring  to  use  it."  On  June  15,  1819,  he  notes,  "  Kean 
on  this  night  (and  probably  before)  left  off  his  absurd  habit  of  collaring 
Richmond  after  he  himself  was  disarmed."  .Op.  cit.,  Vol.  VIII,  pages  495 
and  692. 

*°  Does  this  mean  that  Kean  omitted  the  death  speech  which  Gibber  gives 
Richard  ? 

As  Ryan  had  anticipated  Garrick's  manner,  so  in  the  case  of  Kean, 
George  Frederick  Cooke  suggested  his  general  method.  Vandenhoff,  in  his 
Leaves  from  an  Actor's  Note  Book,  says  that  those  who  had  seen  both  in 
Richard  the  Third,  "do  not  hesitate  to  award  to  Cooke  the  palm  for  sus- 
tained power,  and  intense,  enduring  energy  of  passion ;  Kean  excelled  him 
probably  in  light  and  shade  of  expression."  Kean's  admiration  for  Cooke 
was  well  known,  and  was  attested  by  his  raising  a  monument  to  his 
memory  in  St.  Paul's  churchyard  in  New  York,  when  he  visited  America 
in  1821.  The  well-known  portrait  of  Kean  as  Richard  the  Third  may  be 
found  in  Tallis'  Dramatic  Magazine. 


118 

lustily,  applauded  wildly,  declaring  by  word  and  action  this  new 
actor  was  great  indeed."41 

Three  years  after  Kean's  brilliant  debut,  Kemble  retired 
from  the  stage.  Cooke  had  died  in  1812  in  Boston,  and  until 
the  appearance  of  William  Charles  Macready  in  1819,  Kean 
held  the  part  without  a  possible  equal,  and  with  Junius  Brutus 
Booth  as  his  only  notable  rival.  Booth  resembled  Kean  strik- 
ingly in  person  and  he  imitated  him  closely  in  his  Richard  the 
Third,  and  was  for  a  time  enthusiastically  received.42  But 
his  fame  in  England  was  short-lived,  for  he  went  to  the  United 
States  in  1821,  and  remained  there.  There  were  many  other 
rivals  of  all  classes,  from  the  genteel  and  declamatory  Charles 
Young,  of  the  Kemble  school,  to  the  ridiculous  Plunkett  of 
Dublin,  but  Kean's  preeminence  in  Richard  the  Third  was  un- 
disturbed.43 Kean's  "  leading  ladies  "  of  most  note  were  Mrs. 
Glover  for  Queen  Elizabeth,  whom  he  used  to  frighten  with 
his  tragic  earnestness,  and  Miss  Faucit,  the  greatest  English 
actress  of  the  time,  who  played  the  part  of  Lady  Anne  in  1829. 

41  The  Life  and  Adventures  of  Edmund  Kean  Tragedian.     London,  1888, 
page  150. 

42  An  account  of  his  successful  appearance  is  given  by  Macready  in  his 
Reminiscences,  page  101.     "A  report  had  reached  the  managers  of  Covent 
Garden  of  a  Mr.  Booth   (who  in  figure,  voice,  and  manner  so  closely  re- 
sembled Kean  that  he  might  be  taken  for  his  twin  brother)  acting  Richard 
the  Third  at  Brighton  and  Worthing  with  great  success.      An  appearance 
at  Covent  Garden  was  offered  to  him  with  the  promise  of  an  engagement  if 
successful.      Accordingly  on  the   i2th  of  February   (1817)   he  appeared  in 
Gloster,  and  certainly  on  his  first   entrance  on  the  stage,  with   a  similar 
coiffure  and  dress,  he  might  have  been  thought  Kean  himself.      With  con- 
siderable physical  power,  a  strong  voice,  a  good  deal  of  bustle,  some  stage 
experience,  and  sufficient  intelligence  to  follow  out  the  traditional  effects 
of  the  part,  he  succeeded  in  winning  the  applause  and  favor  of  his  audience, 
and  repeated  the  performance  on  the  following  night."      Then  follows  the 
account  of  Kean's  dramatic  method  of  proving  his  superiority  to  his  rival, 
with  which  we  are  here  not  particularly  concerned. 

48  A  club  called  The  Wolves,  was  formed  to  support  him,  and  while  they 
probably  did  not  do  all  that  was  attributed  to  them,  Genest  thinks  that  it 
is  clear  "  that  there  was  some  combination  among  Kean's  friends  to  prevent 
any  new  performer  from  succeeding  in  Richard."  This  seems  possible 
from  the  treatment  given  to  a  new  actor,  Meggett,  when  he  undertook  the 
part  at  Haymarket,  in  1815.  See  Genest,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  VIII,  page  486. 


119 

Aside  from  the  "  business,"  for  which  Kean's  performance 
was  remarkable,4*  he  does  not  appear  to  have  introduced  many 
innovations  in  the  staging.  At  his  first  appearance  in  1814,  at 
Drury  Lane,  new  scenery,  archeologically  and  historically  cor- 
rect, was  painted  for  the  occasion,45  and  therefore  Kean  found 
the  setting  better  than  any  Richard  before  him.  He  is  repre- 
sented in  a  prompt-book  of  1827  as  making  a  slight  change  in 
the  ghost  scene,  where  the  figures  do  not  rise,  but  a  curtain 
is  drawn  from  the  back  of  Richard's  tent  and  they  appear  in 
the  midst  of  cloud  effects.  Genest  gives  a  suggestion  of  an 
innovation  in  noting  that  "  the  Lord  Mayor  was  very  properly 
played  seriously."46  That  the  Lord  Mayor  was  a  comic  char- 
acter in  Elizabethan  representations  seems  apparent,  and  the 
tradition  had  evidently  persisted  until  public  taste  acquiesced  in 
this  change,  as  it  did  in  Macklin's  elevation  of  the  character  of 
Shylock.  The  costume  throughout  this  period,  used  both  by 
Kean  and  Kemble  before  him,  is  given  by  Oxberry  in  his  "  New 
English  Drama  "  of  i8i8,47  and  shows  the  Elizabethan  dress 

**  "  Every  personator  of  Richard  must  fight  like  a  madman,  and  fence  on 
the  ground,  and  when  disarmed  and  wounded,  thrust  with  savage  impotence 
with  his  naked  hand, 

'  And  sink  outwearied,  rather  than  o'ercome.' 

Mr.  Kean  has  passed  this  manner  into  a  law,  and  woe  be  to  him  who 
breaks  it.  No  one  but  Mr.  Kemble  can  be  allowed  to  parry  like  a  school- 
boy, and  drop  like  a  gentleman."  Quoted  from  The  Champion,  February 
1 6,  1817,  by  Asia  Booth  Clarke  in  The  Elder  and  the  Younger  Booth, 
Boston  1882,  page  15. 

45  Molloy,  op.  cit.,  page   145.      The  building  that  had  been  opened  with 
such  splendor  in  1794,  burned  down  on  February   10,   1809.      Drury  Lane 
was  rebuilt  and  opened  on  October  10,  1812,  with  a  larger  stage  and  finer 
appointments.      On  that  occasion  Lord  Byron  supplied  the  Address.      See 
Boaden,  op.  cit.,  page  568. 

46  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  VIII,  page  692. 

47"Gloster.  ist  dress.  Scarlet  doublet,  trunks,  hose,  hat,  cloak  and 
russet  boots.  2d  dress.  Black  ditto,  ditto,  trimmed  with  gold,  crimson 
velvet  robe,  white  hose,  shoes,  and  plush  hat.  3rd  dress.  Armour  body, 
and  hat. 

"  King  Henry.      Black  velvet  trunks,  hose,  and  cloak. 

"  Richmond.  Buff  pantaloons,  russet  boots,  armour  body,  scarlet  mantle 
and  black  hat. 

"  Queen.      White  satin  dress,  trimmed  with  point  lace  and  beads,  point 


120 

such  as  Garrick  had  used.  Here,  however,  all  the  characters 
are  so  dressed.  We  find  certain  personal  additions  to  Rich- 
ard's costume  made  by  Kean,  as  the  point  lace  collar  which 
Garrick  had  invariably  worn  in  this  part,  and  which  was  given 
Kean  by  Wroughton,  a  fellow-actor.48 

Kean,  in  1820  and  again  in  1825,  visited  America,  where 
Richard  the  Third  was  the  most  prominent  character  in  his 
repertoire.  In  1828,  he  played  the  part  in  Paris,  at  the  Theatre 
Frangais,  where  he  excited  curiosity  but  no  great  appreciation. 
Kean's  popularity,  in  spite  of  his  dissipated  habits  and  conse- 
quent diminution  of  power,  remained  to  the  end.  Hazlitt  tells 
how  prevailingly  he  had  become  the  fashion:  "  If  you  had  not 
been  to  see  the  little  man  twenty  times  in  Richard,  and  did 
not  deny  his  being  hoarse  in  the  last  act,  or  admire  him  for 
being  so,  you  were  looked  on  as  a  lukewarm  devotee,  or  half 
an  infidel!" 

This  interpretation  of  Richard  was  kept  constantly  before 
the  public,  for  it  continued  to  be  a  favorite  part  with  Kean 
to  the  end  of  his  life,49  was  constantly  chosen  by  him  for 
opening  his  season  at  Drury  Lane,  and  was  his  last  play 
there.  His  influence  upon  the  history  of  the  play  is  sug- 
gested in  these  words  of  G.  H.  Lewes :  "  He  largely  increased 
the  stock  of  '  business/  which  is  the  tradition  of  the  stage. 
Hamlet,  Othello,  Richard,  Shylock,  Lear,  Sir  Giles  Overreach, 
or  Sir  Edward  Mortimer  have  (sic?)  been  illuminated  by  him 
in  a  way  neither  actors  nor  playgoers  commonly  suspect.  .  .  . 
Edmund  Kean  did  much  for  Shakespeare.  The  acting  edition 
of  our  greatest  dramatist  may  now  almost  be  said  to  be  based 

lace  and  muslin  drapery.  2d  dress.  Black  velvet  trimmed  with  black 
crape ;  black  crape  veil,  trimmed  with  bugles. 

"  Lady  Anne.  Black  velvet  dress,  trimmed  with  bugles,  blaik  crape  veil, 
trimmed  with  bugles. 

"  The  other  characters  in  variously  colored  doublets,  trunks,  hose  and 
cloaks." 

*8Molloy,  op.  cit.,  page  202,  records  that  after  his  great  success  in 
Richard,  Kean  was  presented  with  a  gold  snuff-box  by  Lord  Byron,  having 
a  boar  hunt  in  mosaic  on  the  lid,  and  henceforth  Kean  adopted  a  boar  as. 
his  crest  as  had  King  Richard. 

"He  died  in  1833. 


121 

upon  his  conceptions  of  the  leading  parts.  He  invented  much. 
His  own  quick,  passionate  sympathy  saw  effects  where  other 
actors  had  seen  nothing."50 

Charles  William  Macready  acted  Richard  the  Third  as  early 
as  1812-3  at  Bristol,  where  his  father  was  manager  of  the 
theatre,  but  he  was  entirely  dissatisfied  with  the  result,  because 
"  a  humpbacked  tall  man  is  not  in  nature."  Yet  it  was  this 
part  which  afterwards  was  of  importance  in  his  attainment 
of  a  leading  position  on  the  London  stage.  It  was  in  1819  that 
he  acted  Richard  first  in  London,  at  Covent  Garden,  where 
he  scored  a  great  success,  playing  it  nine  times,  though  at  that 
period  Kean  was  at  the  height  of  his  reputation.  In  his 
"  Reminiscences  "  he  gives  a  full  account  of  his  reluctance  at 
undertaking  the  part,  and  how  he  was  actually  driven  to  it  by 
his  manager,  Mr.  Harris.  He  tells  of  his  despairing,  but  char- 
acteristically painstaking  preparation  for  it: 

"  All  that  history  could  give  me  I  had  already  ferreted  out,  and  for  my 
portrait  of  the  character,  the  self-reliant,  wily,  quick-sighted,  decisive,  in- 
flexible Plantagenet,  I  went  direct  to  the  true  source  of  inspiration,61  the 
great  original,  endeavoring  to  carry  its  spirit  through  the  sententious  and 
stagy  lines  of  Gibber ;  not  searching  for  particular  '  points '  to  make,  but 
rendering  the  hypocrisy  of  the  man  deceptive  and  persuasive  in  its  earnest- 
ness, and  presenting  him  in  the  execution  of  his  will  as  acting  with 
lightning-like  rapidity."  M 

He  goes  on  to  describe  the  performance,  and  speaks  of  the 
enthusiasm  of  the  audience  particularly  over  his  rendering  of 
Buckingham's  repulse,  "  I'm  busy ;  thou  troublest  me !  I'm  not 
in  the  vein  " ;  over  his  fevered  impatience  in  the  scene  with 
Tyrrel  after  the  murder  of  the  princes,  and  tells  how  at  the 
death  "  the  pit  rose  again  with  one  accord,  waving  their  hats 
with  long-continued  cheers."  After  the  performance,  he  was 
called  for  to  announce  the  play  of  the  next  day  instead  of  the 
one  appointed  to  do  this,  and  the  practice  was  thus  first  in- 
troduced at  Covent  Garden  of  "  calling  on  "  the  principal  actor 

60  Op.  cit.,  pages  19  and  29. 

51  The  first  expression  of  this  that  I  have  found.  Quin  thought  he  was 
playing  Shakespeare's  work  until  Garrick  enlightened  him. 

62  Reminiscences,  edited  by  Sir  Frederick  Pollock,  New  York,  1875,  page 
141. 


122 

The  papers  gave  enthusiastic  accounts  of  it,  some  even 
acknowledging  him  equal  to  the  great  Richard  of  the  day, 
Kean.  Leigh  Hunt's  comparison  of  the  two  is  of  interest: 

"  Compared  then  with  Mr.  Kean,  we  should  say  that  a  division  of  merits, 
usual  enough  with  the  performance  of  such  comprehensive  characters  as 
Shakespeare's  has  taken  place  in  the  Richards  of  these  two  actors.  Mr. 
Kean's  Richard  is  the  more  sombre  and  perhaps  deeper  part  of  him ;  Mr. 
Macready's  the  livelier  and  more  animal  part — a  very  considerable  one 
nevertheless.  Mr.  Kean's  is  the  more  gloomy  and  reflective  villain,  rend- 
ered so  by  the  united  effect  of  his  deformity  and  subtle-mindedness ;  Mr. 
Macready's  is  the  more  ardent  and  bold-faced  one,  borne  up  by  a  tempera- 
ment naturally  high  and  sanguine,  though  pulled  down  by  mortification. 
The  one  has  more  of  the  seriousness  of  conscious  evil  in  it,  the  other  of 
the  gaiety  of  meditated  success  ...  in  short,  Mr.  Kean's  Richard  is 
more  like  King  Richard,  darkened  by  the  shadow  of  his  very  approaching 
success,  and  announcing  the  depth  of  his  desperation  when  it  shall  be 
disputed ;  Mr.  Macready's  Richard  is  more  like  the  Duke  of  Gloucester, 
brother  to  the  gay  tyrant  Edward  IV.,  and  partaking  as  much  of  his 
character  as  the  contradiction  of  the  family  handsomeness  in  his  person 
would  allow."  M 

The  success  at  Covent  Garden  provoked  instant  competition 
at  Drury  Lane,  where  Kean  a  few  weeks  later  assumed  the 
part  with  Elliston  as  Richmond,  and  with  the  announcement 
of  "  New  Scenery,  Dresses,  and  Decorations."  For  several 
evenings  "  Richard  the  Third  "  occupied  both  play-bills,  and 
furnished  subject-matter  for  comparative  criticisms  in  the 
papers,  and  even  for  street-ballads  and  caricatures  in  glaring 
colors  in  the  print-shop  windows,  representing  the  "  Rival 
Richards."" 

Leigh  Hunt  in  the  selection  above  quoted  says,  "  It  is  to  be 
recollected  that  Mr.  Kean  first  gave  the  living  stage  that  exam- 

83  The  Examiner.      Quoted  in  the  Reminiscences,  page  144. 

M  Reminiscences,  page  145.  Later  opinions  of  Macready's  Richard  are 
found  in  Genest,  under  entry  of  May  23d,  1823.  "  He  was  very  inferior  to 
Kean,  till  the  ghosts  appeared  ...  he  was  then  superior,  as  having  stronger 
physical  powers  ...  he  arose  from  the  couch  with  one  of  his  arms  quite 
naked  above  the  elbow — every  person  noticed  this  stage  trick,  but  no  person 
could  tell  what  Macready  meant  by  it."  Vol.  IV,  page  223.  The  Times  on 
March  13,  1821,  after  his  performance  in  his  own  version,  said  of  the  part 
generally,  "  His  Richard  is  a  performance  of  great  merit,  and  would  be 
still  more  complete,  if  he  always  retained  his  self-command."  Remi- 
niscences, page  162. 


123 

pie  of  a  natural  style  of  acting  on  which  Mr.  Macready  has 
founded  his  new  rank  in  the  theatrical  world."  This  suggests 
the  interesting  position  which  Macready  held  in  regard  to  the 
two  great  schools  of  acting.  He  was  "  eclectic,"  and  tried  to 
combine  the  dignity  of  Kemble  with  the  vivacity  of  Kean,  the 
deliberateness  and  majesty  of  the  one  with  the  animal  spirits 
and  rush  of  the  other.  In  his  lines,  he  paid  more  attention  to 
logical  than  rhythmic  structure,  in  distinction  to  the  accenting 
of  measure  strongly  with  the  meaning  secondary,  as  in  the 
older  school. 

Soon  after  his  first  success  in  "  Richard  the  Third,"  Mac- 
ready,  dissatisfied  with  the  Gibber  version,  and  always  cherish- 
ing the  hope  of  restoring  the  Shakespearian  text  to  the  stage, 
in  1821  attempted  to  return  to  the  original  play.  That  the 
"  restoration  "  was  only  a  partial  one,  we  find  from  his  account 
of  it  in  his  "  Reminiscences :" 

"  An  alteration  of  Gibber's  '  King  Richard  III.'  had  been  sent  to  me  by 
Mr.  Swift  of  the  Crown  Jewel  Office,  but  varying  so  little  from  the  work 
it  professed  to  reform,  that  I  was  obliged  to  extend  the  restoration  of 
Shakespeare's  text,  and  it  was  submitted  (March  i2th,  1821)  to  the  public 
ordeal.56  The  experiment  was  partially  successful — only  partially.  To 
receive  full  justice,  Shakespeare's  '  Life  and  Death  of  King  Richard  III.' 
should  be  given  in  its  perfect  integrity,  whereby  alone  scope  could  be 
afforded  to  the  active  play  of  Richard's  versatility  and  unscrupulous 
persistency.  But,  at  the  time  of  which  I  write,  our  audiences  were 
accustomed  to  the  coarse  jests  and  ad  captandum  speeches  of  Gibber,  and 
would  have  condemned  the  omission  of  such  uncharacteristic  claptrap  as 

'  Off  with  his  head  !    so  much  for  Buckingham  ! ' 
or  such  bombast  as 

'  Hence,  babbling  dreams :  you  threaten  here  in  vain. 
Conscience,  avaunt !    Richard's  himself  again  ! ' 

In  deference  to  the  taste  of  the  times,  these  passages  as  well  as  similar 
ones  were  retained."  6e 

B0  The  playbill  announced,  "  Of  the  Tragedy  hitherto  acted  under  the 
title  of  King  Richard  the  3d,  more  than  half  is  the  exclusive  composition 
of  Gibber.  The  present  is  an  attempt  to  restore  (in  place  of  his  ingenious 
alteration)  the  original  character  and  language  of  Shakespeare ;  in  which 
no  more  extraneous  matter  is  retained  than  the  trifling  passages  necessary 
to  connect  those  scenes  between  which  omissions  have  necessarily  been 
made  for  the  purposes  of  representation." 

66  Reminiscences,  page  162. 


124 

It  was  regarded  rather  as  a  rearrangement  of  Gibber's  text 
than  as  a  restoration  of  the  original,  according  to  "  The 
Times"  of  the  next  day: 

"  At  a  period  when  Shakespeare  is  regarded  almost  with  idolatry,  any 
attempt  to  rescue  the  original  text  from  the  omissions  and  interpolations 
which  successive  ages  have  accumulated,  must  at  least  be  viewed  with 
favor;  with  that  feeling  we  witnessed  last  night  the  representation  of  his 
'  Life  and  Death  of  King  Richard  III.',  which  was  announced  to  be,  with 
a  few  deviations,  the  text  of  the  author.  .  .  .  The  performance  of  last 
night  was  merely  another  arrangement  and  certainly  inferior  in  dramatic 
effect  to  that  of  Gibber.57  .  .  .  The  only  scene  of  much  value  was  that 
of  the  Council  and  the  condemnation  of  Hastings."  M 

Genest  gives  some  account  of  the  performance: 

"  The  first  two  acts  went  off  with  great  applause,  and  the  audience  was 
evidently  delighted  at  the  idea  of  the  original  play  being  revived — in  the 
3d  act  the  Bishop  of  Ely  made  his  exit  in  so  ludicrous  a  manner,  that  :t 
threw  a  damp  on  the  rest  of  the  play — Egerton  was  much  applauded  in 
Clarence's  dream — Mrs.  Bunn  (Margaret)  made  the  greatest  impression — 
such  is  the  account  of  a  gentleman  who  was  present  on  this  evening."  •• 

This  version  was  acted  for  a  second  time  on  March  nine- 
teenth, and  then  laid  aside.60  At  Macready's  next  appearance 
in  Richard  the  Third,  which  did  not  take  place  until  1831,  at 
Drury  Lane,  when  he  played  the  part  three  times,  the  text  was 
the  Gibber  form.  Again  he  appeared  in  it  five  times  in  1836-7, 
but  during  the  period  of  his  management  of  Drury  Lane  and 
his  Shakespearian  revivals  there,  from  1841-3,  "  Richard  the 
Third  "  was  not  attempted.61  Neither  does  it  seem  to  have 

"  Although  an  American  commentator  says,  "  The  bloated  reputation  of 
Gibber's  interpolations  he  [t.  e.,  Macready]  decried,  and  felt  anguish  at  the 
innovations  of  even  Dryden  and  Massinger."  Francis,  Old  New  York, 
page  245. 

08  Reminiscences,  page  162  note. 

69  Op.  cit.,  Volume  IX.  Buckingham  was  played  by  the  "  imitator  "  Yates, 
and  Queen  Elizabeth  by  Mrs.  Faucit. 

80  Genest  gives  as  his  reasons  for  its  cold  reception  that  "  few  like   to 
acknowledge  that  they  have  been  applauding  wretched  stuff,"  and  that  it 
was  further  due  to  the  lack  of  foresight  on  the  part  of  the  management  in 
not  preceding  the  performance  by  suitable  observations  in  the  newspapers, 
and  thus  preparing  the  audience  for  the  change. 

81  The  play  seems,  however,  to  have  been  in  his  mind  from  time  to  time, 
as,   in    1838,   we   find   in   the  Reminiscences  the   following   note,   "Looked 
through    the    plays    of    Shakespeare    to    discover    if   any    others    could   be 


125 

been  in  his  repertoire  in  either  of  his  visits  to  America  in  1826 
and  in  1843,  although  at  that  time  it  seems  to  have  been  a 
favorite  play  with  English  "  stars  "  for  opening  an  American 
season.  Indeed,  while  Richard  the  Third  had  been  an  im- 
portant role  in  starting  Macready  on  his  successful  theatrical 
career  in  London,  he  seems  never  to  have  been  suited  in 
figure  or  in  disposition  to  this  part,  and  it  was  never  a  favorite 
or  a  frequent  role  with  him.62 

Macready,  as  we  have  seen,  did  not  attempt  "  Richard  the 
Third  "  in  the  Shakespearian  revivals  under  his  management, 
but  this  play  was  among  the  first  given  by  Samuel  Phelps  at 
Sadler's  Wells  Theatre,  after  the  patent  privileges  were  abol- 
ished.63 Its  production  took  place  February  20,  1845. 64  The 

available  for  revival.  Decided  that  '  King  Richard  III.,'  and  afterwards, 
perhaps,  '  King  Henry  V.'  were  the  only  ones.  Looked  at  Schlegel's  re- 
marks on  Richard."  On  December  23d  of  the  same  year  he  wrote : 
"  Looked  through  the  unused  plays  of  Shakespeare  for  cementing  lines 
for  '  Richard  III.' "  He  says  in  the  account  of  his  first  attempt  at  a 
restoration  of  the  original  text :  "  At  a  later  period,  if  the  management  of 
Covent  Garden  in  1837-9  had  been  continued,  the  play,  with  many  others, 
would  have  been  presented  in  its  original  purity."  (Page  162.) 

62  One  of  the  last  appearances  of  Macready  as  Richard  the  Third  is  con- 
nected with  a  serio-comic  incident  which  is  highly  characteristic  of  the 
sensitive  and  irritable  actor,  and  at  the  same  time  reveals  the  degenerate 
state  of  Drury  Lane  fortunes.  Bunn,  the  manager,  planned  a  combined 
attraction  in  which  the  first  three  acts  of  Richard  the  Third  were  to  be 
given  with  The  Jewess  and  the  first  act  of  Chevy  Chase.  The  rage  and 
disgust  of  Macready,  who  was  forced  to  appear  as  Richard,  resulted  in  an 
attack  by  him  upon  Bunn,  which  caused  him  afterwards  agonies  of  self- 
reproach  and  humiliation. 

68  The  patent  privileges,  which  restricted  the  legitimate  drama  to  the 
three  patent  theatres  during  the  main  season,  was  abolished  in  1843.  The 
minor  theatres  at  once  turned  to  Shakespearian  plays,  but  only  at  Sadler's 
Wells  were  these  received  with  sufficient  favor  to  warrant  an  extended 
us  of  them.  The  history  of  Sadler's  Wells  under  the  management  of 
Samuel  Phelps  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  episodes  of  stage  annals. 
At  this  theatre,  at  one  time  one  of  the  most  humble,  he  revived  nearly  all 
of  Shakespeare's  plays,  and  here  fostered  the  best  in  the  drama  for  nearly 
twenty  years,  at  a  time  when  the  older  houses  were  given  over  to  spectacles 
and  animal  shows. 

64  It  ran  for  twenty-four  nights,  according  to  The  Life  and  the  Life-Work 
of  Samuel  Phelps,  by  his  nephew,  W.  May  Phelps,  and  John  Forbes- 
Robertson,  London,  1886,  page  69.  Lounsbury,  op.  cit.,  page  320,  note, 
found  it  advertised  for  only  twenty-one  nights. 


126 

reports  of  the  day  speak  of  the  remarkable  care  and  attention 
with  which  it  was  staged,  and  note  as  especially  beautiful  the 
views  of  Cheapside  and  of  the  Tower,  and  the  approach  of  the 
Mayor  by  water.  The  tent  scenes  were  given  as  in  Shake- 
speare, the  two  tents  being  set  up  before  the  audience,  and  the 
ghosts  advanced  between  them  "  by  some  ingenious  process, 
but  so  far  only  as  to  be  dimly  visible  to  the  audience."  A  more 
important  element  of  the  performance  was  that  the  text  used 
was  Shakespeare's.  This  was  modified  by  "  such  alterations 
only  as  were  necessary  either  to  reduce  the  play  within  acting 
length,  or  obviate  some  otherwise  insurmountable  difficulty 
.  .  .  with  occasionally  the  introduction  of  a  few  lines  (Shake- 
speare's) to  conclude  an  act  or  make  a  graceful  exit."65 

The  play,  although  revived  with  such  care  and  attention  to 
details,  was  not  repeated  until  the  close  of  Phelps'  manage- 
ment, in  1862,  on  November  23.  On  this  occasion,  strangely 
enough,  Gibber's  version  was  used,  the  reason  avouched  being 
that  the  actress  available  for  Queen  Margaret,  Miss  Atkinson, 
was  unequal  to  the  part.66  This  performance  was  repeated 
on  January  4,  and  again  on  the  i8th.  Phelps,  as  Richard, 
gave  an  acceptable  and  conscientious  presentation,  but  one  in 
no  way  great;  but  he  is  of  importance  in  the  history  of  the 
play  because  of  the  thoughtful  and  artistic  staging  which  he 
gave  it,  and  because  his  was  the  first  thorough  and  successful 
restoration  of  the  original  form. 

During  1851-9,  Phelps'  work  at  Sadler's  Wells  was  rivalled 
by  that  of  Charles  Kean  at  the  Princess  Theatre,  but  the 
productions  here  were  on  a  much  more  splendid  scale,  and 
mark  the  culmination  of  the  methods  inaugurated  by  John 

"  Phelps  and  Forbes-Robertson,  op.  cit,,  page  75.  The  play-bill  read : 
"  In  order  to  meet  the  spirit  of  the  present  age,  so  distinguished  for 
illustrating  and  honouring  the  works  of  Shakespeare,  and  with  at  least 
an  honest  desire  of  testing  his  truthful  excellence  over  all  attempted 
improvements,  this  restoration  is  essayed,  in  lieu  of  the  alteration,  inter- 
polation, and  compilement  of  Colley  Gibber,  which  has  so  long  held 
possession  of  the  stage." 

M  Phelps  and  Forbes-Robertson,  op.  cit.,  page  202.  The  part  had  been 
played  by  Mrs.  Warner,  who  was  at  her  best  in  severe  and  majestic  charac- 
ters, such  as  Queen  Margaret. 


127 

Kemble.  "  Richard  the  Third  "  had  its  place  in  these  gorge- 
ous displays  on  February  20,  1850.  It  was  staged  with  the 
greatest  elaboration  of  the  details  of  scenery  and  costume,  as 
were  all  of  Kean's  revivals,  a  practice  which  won  for  him  the 
sneering  comment  of  a  newspaper  critic  of  the  time :  "  The 
painter,  the  tailor,  and  the  upholsterer  are  Mr.  Kean's  inter- 
preters of  Shakespeare."  The  play-bill  shows  a  cast  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty-one ;  the  funeral  procession  was  large  and 
impressive,  including  monks  with  torches,  priests  with  a  golden 
cross,  banner-men  bearing  the  banners  of  the  arms  of  Eng- 
land, numbering  in  all  fifty-nine;  and  the  coronation  scene 
matched  it  in  splendor.  No  longer  a  few  actors  ran  in  and 
out  to  represent  an  army,  but  Richard  is  followed  by  fifty- 
eight  of  his  men,  appropriately  distinguished  as  trumpeters, 
royal  archers  gorgeously  dressed,  banner-men  in  steel  with 
various  insignia,  knights  with  white  roses  on  their  breasts  and 
shields.  Richmond's  following  is  as  complete,  as  appropri- 
ately dressed,  and  decorated  with  red  roses.  The  dress  dif- 
fers materially  in  fashion  from  that  used  hitherto.  In  the 
"  Fly  Leaf,"  which  the  manager  was  accustomed  to  append  to 
the  play-bill  upon  the  appearance  of  a  new  revival  to  prepare 
the  audience  for  the  innovations  in  architecture  and  costume, 
he  gives  his  authorities  at  length.67  Not  only  correctness,  but 
great  richness  is  shown  in  the  costume,  as  in  Richard's  dress, 
which  is  described  thus: 

"  Crimson  velvet  shirt,  edged  with  sable  fur,  gold  waistcoat  with  black 
velvet  sleeves  puffed  with  gold  coming  through  the  hanging  sleeve  of  the 
shirt,  gold  waist-belt  carrying  a  cross-hilted  sword  and  dagger,  purple 
stockings,  order  of  garter,  under  left  knee,  gold  collar  of  suns  and  roses, 
black  velvet  cap  with  jewel,  high  riding  boots  and  spurs,  and  gauntlets. 
In  Act  II.  the  same,  with  crimson  velvet  shoes  with  pointed  toes  instead 
of  boots.  .  .  .  Act  IV.  King's  Dress.  Long  gown  representing  cloth  of 
gold  edged  with  ermine,  purple  velvet  robe  edged  with  ermine  and  ermine 

67  Meyrick's  Ancient  Armour,  Col.  C.  H.  Smith's  Ancient  Costume  of 
Great  Britain,  Planche's  unpublished  work  on  the  costume  of  Richard 
the  Third,  Strutt's  Dresses  and  Habits  of  the  People  of  England,  Fairholt's 
Costume  in  England,  Fosbroke's  Encyclopedia  of  Antiquities,  Dugdale's 
Monasticon  Anglicanum,  Shaw's  Dresses  and  Decorations,  Stothard's 
Monumental  Effigies,  Froissart's  Chronicles,  Pugin's  Glossary  of  Ecclesi- 
astical Ornament  and  Costume,  and  the  Herald  of  Office. 


128 

cape,  crimson  stockings,  purple  velvet  pointed  shoes  with  cross-bars  of  gold, 
gold  cord  and  tassels  round  waist,  jewelled  sword,  diamond  collar  of  suns 
and  roses,  gold  and  richly  jewelled  crown,  without  feathers,  as  worn  by 
Henry  VI.  After  the  Coronation  scene,  instead  of  the  coronation  robe, 
a  puce  velvet  open  robe  with  hanging  sleeves,  the  velvet  cap  edged  with 
ermine.  Act  V.  Suit  of  complete  armor,  with  a  surcoat  emblazoned  with 
the  arms  of  England."  M 

Lady  Anne's  dress  presented  a  markedly  different  appear- 
ance from  the  usual  one  for  this  part: 

"  Black  velvet  demi-train  with  hanging  sleeves,  and  tight  blue  shirt  under 
to  the  wrist,  square  body,  a  muslin  chimesette  to  the  throat,  fold  of  linen 
under  chin,  cowl  of  white  linen,  large  black  veil,  square  velvet  head-dress 
(shape  of  that  worn  by  Neapolitan  peasantry).  Second  dress:  Surcoat  of 
sea-green  trimmed  with  gold  and  ermine,  under-dress  of  orange-colored 
cloth  with  tight  bleeves,  cowl  of  silver,  and  jewelled  head-dress." 

As  in  the  case  of  the  performance  at  Sadler's  Wells,  Richard 
was  thoughtfully,  intelligently  acted,  but  with  none  of  the 
originality  of  the  days  of  Cooke  or  Kean.  It  was  a  time  of 
excellent  second-rate  talent,  when  the  traditions  that  had  gath- 
ered about  this  character  were  carried  on  by  such  men  as 
George  Bennett  and  Henry  Marston. 

In  regard  to  the  text,  Kean  set  forth  his  views  in  the  "  Fly 
Leaf."  This  ran  as  follows: 

"  In  selecting  the  play  of  '  King  Richard  the  Third/  I  have,  upon  mature 
consideration,  decided  on  adopting  the  well-known  version  of  Colley  Gibber, 
instead  of  going  back  to  the  original  text  of  Shakespeare.  The  text  has 
been  practically  declared  by  the  greatest  ornaments  of  the  drama,  less  fitted 
in  its  integrity  for  representation  on  the  stage  than  almost  any  other 
generally  acted  play  of  the  great  poet;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
tragedy,  as  modified  by  Gibber,  being  rather  a  ccndensation  than  an  altera- 
tion of  Shakespeare  (the  interpolations  themselves  being  chiefly  selections 
from  his  other  plays),  has  been  pronounced  one  of  the  most  admirable  and 
skilful  instances  of  dramatic  adaptations  ever  known.  .  .  .  With  such 
distinguished  precedents  for  my  guide,  I  might  well  hesitate  in  reverting, 
on  the  present  occasion,  to  the  original  text,  even  if  their  judgment  had 
not  been  sanctioned  by  the  voice  of  experience,  and  were  it  not  also  a 
fact  that  the  tragedy  of  '  King  Richard  the  Third,'  as  adapted  by  Gibber, 
is  most  intimately  associated  with  the  traditionary  admiration  of  the  public 
for  those  renowned  and  departed  actors."  "* 

88  A  portrait  of  Charles  Kean  as  Richard  may  be  found  in  Tallis'  Drawing- 
Room  Table  Book,  from  the  original  painting  by  Reid. 

88  The   Life   and   Theatrical   Times   of   Charles   Kean,   F.S.A.,   by   John 


129 

This  is  interesting  and  shows  the  trend  of  public  opinion, 
from  the  very  fact  that  the  manager  thought  an  apology 
necessary. 

The  performance  does  not  seem  to  have  been  repeated,  nor 
did  it  meet  with  entire  favor.  It  was  given  for  only  nineteen 
nights,  a  short  "  run  "  at  this  time,  when  plays  were  being 
acted  for  twenty  weeks  at  a  stretch.  The  public  seemed  to 
feel  that  in  the  superabundance  of  scenery  and  "  effects,"  the 
play  was  almost  left  out,  that  the  dramatic  interest  was  being 
exchanged  for  something  else  of  less  value.70 

After  the  performances  of  "  Richard  the  Third  "  at  Sadler's 
Wells  in  1862,  the  play  seems  to  have  returned  to  its  former 
position  in  the  stock  plays  of  the  best  houses.  In  the  6o's  and 
early  7o's,  Henry  Irving  was  establishing  his  "  monopoly  of 
stage  villains  "  in  the  provinces  and  London,  and  we  find  no 
greater  Richard  than  the  "  robustious "  Barry  Sullivan  at 
Drury  Lane  until  Irving's  performance  of  the  play  at  the 
Lyceum  in  1877.  With  this  performance  a  new  kind  of 
Richard  made  his  appearance,  and  the  Shakespearian  text 
received  a  fuller  vindication  than  had  been  possible  before.  It 
was  the  first  time  on  the  modern  stage  that  a  great  actor  had 
appeared  with  the  original  form. 

Irving's  adaptation  of  the  play  consists  entirely  in  cutting 
out  certain  scenes  chiefly  epic,  but  no  characters  are  dropped 
except  the  children  of  Clarence,  and  there  is  no  rearrangement 
of  scenes.  The  omissions  in  detail  are  as  follows. 

Act  I  (Sh.  I,  i,  2). — Chiefly  shortened  in  the  speeches  of 
Lady  Anne. 

Act  II  (Sh.  I,  3-11  end). — The  speeches  of  the  Queen  and 
of  Margaret  are  cut  down.  Most  of  the  conversation  of  the 
murderers  is  omitted,  making  the  murder  of  Clarence  a  short 

William  Cole,  London,  1859,  page  101.  For  the  very  slight  changes,  such 
as  the  omission  of  lines,  etc.,  see  Lacy's  Acting  Edition  of  Plays,  Vol.  13 
(Richard  the  Third).  This  gives  the  play  as  performed  in  1854,  at  the 
Royal  Princess's  Theatre,  London. 

70  A  newspaper  of  the  time  remarks :  "  The  little  importance  which  Mr. 
Kean  attaches  to  good  acting  needs  no  other  proof  than  the  fact  of  his 
generally  taking  the  principal  characters   himself."      On  over-staging,   see 
Macready's  Reminiscences,  page  685. 
10 


130 

scene.  The  scene  of  the  nobles  about  the  dying  King  Edward 
is  much  shortened.  The  remaining  scenes  of  Act  II  are 
omitted. 

Act  III. — The  principal  omissions  are  the  scene  between 
Hastings  and  the  pursuivant,  later  Buckingham  (Sh.  Ill,  2), 
the  leading  of  Rivers,  Grey  and  Vaughan  to  death  (Sh.  Ill,  3), 
the  speech  of  the  scrivener  (Sh.  Ill,  6),  and  sections  from  the 
speeches  of  Buckingham  and  Richard  in  the  scene  in  Baynard 
Castle  (Sh.  Ill,  7). 

Act  IV. — The  act  opens  with  Sh.  IV,  2,  the  coronation  scene. 
The  part  of  Queen  Margaret  is  omitted  from  this  act,  and  the 
solicitation  of  Elizabeth  is  much  shortened.  The  scene  be- 
tween Derby  and  Urswick  is  omitted. 

Act  V. — Scenes  I,  2  and  3,  as  far  as  the  scene  in  the  camp 
of  Richmond,  are  omitted.  The  ghosts  of  Prince  Edward, 
Rivers,  Grey  and  Vaughan  do  not  appear,  and  the  others 
speak  only  to  Richard.  The  play  closes  with  the  fall  of 
Richard,  and  nothing  is  spoken  after  his  second  cry  of 

A  horse,  a  horse,  my  kingdom  for  a  horse ! 

Irving's  Richard  was  much  admired  as  a  convincing,  sug- 
gestive interpretation.  The  epithet  most  often  applied  to  it 
was  "  intellectual,"  while  the  princely  character  of  his  render- 
ing of  the  part  was  frequently  commented  upon.  Tennyson, 
in  analyzing  his  acting  in  this  play,  said :  "  I  often  wonder 
how  he  gets  his  distinctively  Plantagenet  look."  The  critics 
called  him  "  splendidly  Satanic,"  spoke  of  his  superb  mono- 
logue, and  remarked  how  well  the  part  displayed  his  person- 
ality, which  was  "  peculiarly  rich  in  the  elements  of  the  weird, 
the  sinister,  the  sardonic,  the  grimly  humorous,  the  keenly 
intellectual."  Irving  seemed  to  carry  to  finest  culmination  the 
conception  of  Richard's  character  which  such  romanticists  as 
Hazlitt  saw  suggested  in  Edmund  Kean's  presentation,  his  sub- 
tlety, imagination;  but  in  Irving's  case  with  more  of  that 
"  pride  of  intellect "  which  Coleridge  took  as  the  predominat- 
ing note  in  Shakespeare's  play.71 

T1  The  staging  of  the  play  while  beautiful,  was  not  extravagant.  Indeed 
Irving,  in  his  speech  to  the  Garrick  Oub,  cites  this  as  an  instance  where 
success  was  not  achieved  through  splendid  mounting. 


131 

The  play,  although  commended  on  all  sides,  was  not  repeated 
for  twenty  years,  until  1896,  nor  was  it  given72  in  any  of 
Irving's  visits  in  America.73  Moreover,  at  its  later  revival, 
the  success  was  only  partial.74  These  performances  and 
Irving's  presentation  of  the  part  are  noteworthy,  however,  in 
the  history  of  the  play  in  marking  the  establishment  of  the 
Shakespearian  text  upon  the  stage,  and  at  least  the  measurable 
vindication  of  its  superiority,  if  not  its  complete  victory  over 
the  altered  form.  It  is  significant  to  notice  that  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  in  returning  to  Shakespeare,  Irving  had  been 
heralded  as  foreswearing  the  melodrama  of  Gibber,  his  per- 
formance in  the  second  revival  of  the  play  is  described  as  "  a 
little  more  highly  colored  "  and  as  containing  "  here  and  there 
touches  which  almost  verge  upon  the  melodramatic."  This 
seems  in  a  measure  to  sum  up  the  long  history  of  the  play  from 
the  melodramatic  and  un-Shakespearian  performances  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  through  the  attempts  to  avoid  these  affects 
in  the  nineteenth  century  "  restorations,"  to  the  unintentional 
recognition  of  the  melodramatic  in  the  Shakespearian  play 
itself.75 

72  Except  Act  I,  with  which  Irving  closed  his  first  engagement  in  America, 
November  24,  1883.  See  T.  A.  Brown,  History  of  the  New  York  Stage, 
page  305. 

78  In  America,  in  the  meantime,  as  early  as  1871,  the  Shakespearian  text 
was  used  at  Niblo's  Garden,  New  York,  combined  with  great  elaborateness 
of  scenery  and  costume. 

74  A  correspondent  to  The  Evening  Post  for  Wednesday,  November  21, 
1906,  says:  "The  records  of  the  London  Lyceum  do  not  show  that  the 
Irving  revival  of  *  King  Richard  III.'  was  a  profitable  venture ;  while  I 
had  the  distinguished  actor's  word  for  it  that  his  personal  achievement  in 
the  role  was  a  matter  of  satisfaction  to  neither  himself  nor  his  clientele. 
He  spoke  to  me,  in  1901,  in  Philadelphia,  to  the  effect  that  he  regarded 
'  King  Richard  III.'  and  '  Coriolanus '  as  his  chief  mistakes  in  management." 

76  In  Germany  the  stage  version  of  Franz  Dingelstedt  is  notable,  as 
showing  the  Meiningen  methods  of  individualizing  the  minor  characters. 
The  management  of  the  ghost  scene  is  also  interesting,  as  one  of  the 
various  attempts  to  make  this  scene  effective  and  quasi-convincing.  The 
stage  directions  read :  "  Der  hintere  Vorhangsimes  Zeltes  theilt  sich 
langsam.  Die  ganze  Tiefe  der  Biihne,  in  Wolken  gehiillt,  wird  sichbar. 
Im  Mittlegrund  erscheinen  auf  einer  Erhohung,  in  magischem,  nich  zu 
hellem  Lichte,  die  Geister ;  im  Hintergrunde  das  Innere  des  Zeltes  Rich- 


132 

Thus  have  we  followed  the  history  of  "  Richard  the  Third  " 
through  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  from  Garrick,  who  first 
made  its  possibilities  evident  to  modern  audiences  and  used  it 
during  his  long  career  as  one  of  his  most  successful  plays, 
through  the  period  of  the  classical,  heroic  interpretation  of 
John  Kemble  and  the  impersonation  of  Kean,  vivid  and  con- 
vincing especially  on  the  emotional  side,  to  Irving,  when,  after 
a  lapse  of  fifty  years,  we  again  have  an  original  conception  of 
the  character.  Other  lines  of  development  have  been  followed 
in  the  successive  experiments  in  staging  made  by  Kemble, 
Phelps  and  Charles  Kean,  and  in  the  attempts  to  "  restore  " 
the  Shakespearian  text,  which  with  Irving  attained  a  measure- 
able  success.  That  these  efforts  in  restoration  have  met  with 
only  partial  success  may  be  explained,  in  part  at  least,  by  the 

mond's,  den  man,  heller  als  die  Geister  bleuchtet,  ruhig  auf  seinem  Lager 
schlummern,  sieht.  Richard  liegt  rechts  auf  der  Biihne,  sich  unruhig  hin 
und  her  walzend ;  Richmond  links  in  der  Hohe.  Zwischen  beiden  stehen  die 
Geister,  ihre  Reden  bald  rechts  herab  in  den  Vordergrund,  bald  links  hinauf 
in  die  Hohe  richtend."  Theatre  von  Franz  Dingelstedt,  Richard  III,  1877. 
As  in  the  preceding  periods,  so  in  the  nineteenth  century,  the  figure  of 
Richard  the  Third  appeared  in  other  plays.  In  1818,  Richard  Duke  of 
York  was  performed  at  Drury  Lane  on  December  22,  and  once  afterward. 
This  was  a  compilation  of  the  three  parts  of  Henry  the  Sixth,  with  the 
introduction  of  passages  from  Chapman  and  other  Elizabethan  dramatist  J. 
See  Genest,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  VIII,  page  640.  Charles  Kemble  condensed 
the  Henry  the  Sixth  plays  into  a  single  one,  which  was  never  performed. 
He  used  in  addition  Richard  the  Second  and  Richard  the  Third.  See  Henry 
Irving  Shakespeare,  Vol.  II.  In  1757,  C.  F.  Weisse  produced  a  Richard 
der  Dritte,  but  he  disclaims  any  imitation  of  Shakespeare,  The  story 
appeared  in  France  under  the  title  of  Les  Enfants  d'Edouard,  written  by 
Casimir  Delavigne.  Fechter  "  doubled "  the  characters  of  Buckingham 
and  Tyrrel  in  this  with  great  success,  and  is  thus  brought  into  some  slight 
connection  with  the  history  of  Richard  the  Third.  (He  seems  never  to 
have  used  the  English  play.)  The  dramatis  persona  may  give  some  idea 
of  it;  Edward  the  Fifth,  Richard  Duke  of  York,  Richard  Duke  of  Glou- 
cester, Buckingham,  Tyrrell,  Queen  Elizabeth,  Lucy  the  Queen's  maid, 
Emma  and  Fanny,  court  ladies,  William  the  Queen's  serving-man,  Cardinal 
Bouchier,  Archbishop  of  York,  Digton,  Forrest,  Lords,  etc.  A  play  on 
Edward  the  Fourth  and  Elizabeth  Grey  appeared  at  Covent  Garden  on 
October  10,  1829,  by  Isabel  Hill,  called  First  of  May,  or  a  Royal  Love- 
Match.  It  was  acted  eleven  times.  See  Genest,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  IX,  page 
513- 


133 

fact  that  with  the  rejection  of  the  Gibber  text,  which  was 
frankly  melodramatic  according  to  the  modern  ideas  of 
melodrama,  and  in  so  far  represented  a  familiar  equivalent 
for  the  heightened  effects  of  the  Elizabethan  play,  the 
"  restored  "  "  Richard  the  Third  "  appeals  to  literary  rather 
than  to  dramatic  interest.  So  far  as  the  stage  is  concerned, 
there  are  evidences  that  the  struggle  for  the  Shakespearian 
form  that  has  long  closed  for  all  the  other  plays,  is  destined 
to  wage  for  an  indefinite  period  in  the  history  of  "  Richard 
the  Third,"  for  Gibber's  form,  while  nominally  despised  by 
first-class  actors  and  the  critical  public,  is  still  holding  the 
stage  and  is  still  preferred  by  a  large  part  of  the  community 
whose  opinions  cannot  be  ignored. 


VI 

RICHARD  THE  THIRD  IN  AMERICA 

The  earliest  recorded  Shakespearian  play  in  America — The  Philadelphia 
Company — The  first  English  company — Theatricals  during  the  Revolution — 
The  revival  of  theatrical  activity  after  the  war — The  Old  Park  Theatre — 
Last  days  of  the  American  Company — Cooke — Edmund  Kean's  visits  to 
America — J.  B.  Booth — Forrest — Charles  Kean — Some  curious  performances 
of  "  Richard  the  Third  " — Edwin  Booth — The  "  restoration  "  of  "  Richard 
the  Third"  at  Niblo's  Garden — Booth's  version — Comparison  with  Irving's 
— Booth's  contemporaries — General  significance  of  the  history  of  the  play 
in  America. 

Dunlap,  in  his  history  of  the  American  theatre,  quite  arbi- 
trarily begins  his  narrative  with  the  first  English  company 
that  came  to  this  country,  merely  noticing  that  "  as  early  as 
1749  it  is  on  record  that  the  magistracy  of  the  city  (Philadel- 
phia) had  been  disturbed  by  some  idle  young  men  perpetrating 
the  murder  of  sundry  plays  in  the  skirts  of  the  town,  but  the 
culprits  had  been  arrested  and  bound  over  to  their  good  beha- 
vior after  confessing  their  crime  and  promising  to  spare  the 
poor  poets  for  the  future.1"  This  passage  is  interesting  in 
that  it  suggests  the  existence  of  a  native  organization  of  actors 
in  America  at  this  early  date,  prior  to  the  English  company 
of  1752,  and  in  that  it  gives  early  evidence  of  the  attitude  of 
the  Quaker  City  toward  players,  a  factor  that  afterwards  had 
to  be  reckoned  with  in  the  efforts  to  establish  the  drama  in 
that  city.  The  first  theatrical  notice  which  has  been  preserved 
in  this  country  is  thought  to  relate  to  the  later  attempts  of 
these  same  "  idle  young  men."  It  reads  as  follows : 

By  his  Excellency's   Permission, 

At  the  Theatre  in  Nassau  Street, 

On  Monday,  the  sth  day  of  March  next  (1750) 

Will  be  presented  the  Historical  Tragedy  of 

King  Richard  3d  1 

1A  History  of  the  American  Theatre.    New  York,  1832,  page  17. 

134 


135 

Wrote  originally  by  Shakespeare, 
and  altered  by  Colley  Gibber  Esqr. 

In  this  play  is  contained  the  Death  of  King  Henry  6th ; — the  artful  acquisi- 
tion of  the  crown  by  King  Richard ; — the  murder  of  the  Princes 
in  the  Tower ; — the  landing  of  the  Earl  of  Richmond,  and 

the  Battle  of  Bosworth  Field. 

Tickets  will  be  ready  to  be  delivered  by  Thursday  next, 
and  to  be  had  of  the  Printer  hereof. 
Pitt,  5  shillings;  Gallery,  3  shillings. 

To  begin  precisely  at  half  an  hour  after  6  o'clock,  and  no 
person  to  be  admitted  behind  the  scenes.2 

This  is  the  first  recorded  dramatic  performance  in  New  York, 
and  while  the  opening  play  was  probably  one  that  the  company 
had  already  given  in  Philadelphia,  it  is  the  initial  Shakespear- 
ian performance  in  America  of  which  we  have  any  account. 

The  managers  of  the  Philadelphia  Company3  were  Messrs. 
Murray  and  Kean,  the  latter  playing  the  leading  roles  in  trag- 
edy and  comedy.  Thomas  Kean  is  therefore,  with  odd  coin- 
cidence of  name,  the  earliest  American  Richard.  We  know 
almost  nothing  about  him,  or  whether  he  was  an  amateur  or 
professional  actor,  although  the  reception  of  his  company  in 
New  York  would  indicate  that  they  were  something  more  than 
mere  "  idlers."  The  place  of  this  performance  was  the  first 
Nassau  Street  Theatre,  situated  between  John  Street  and 
Maiden  Lane.  It  was  an  improvised  theatre  in  a  house  which 
had  belonged  to  the  estate  of  the  Honorable  Rip  Van  Dam,  a 
two-storied  building  with  high  gables.  The  stage  was  raised 
five  feet  from  the  floor;  the  scenery,  curtains  and  wings  had 
been  brought  by  the  managers  in  their  property  trunks ;  a  green 
drop-curtain  was  suspended  from  the  ceiling;  and  the  wings 
were  made  of  a  pair  of  paper  screens.  Six  wax  lights  were 
in  front  of  the  stage,  and  the  house  was  lighted  by  a  chandelier 
made  of  a  barrel  hoop  through  which  were  driven  a  few  nails 

2  Quoted  from  the  Weekly  Postboy,  a  continuation  of  the  New  York 
Gazette,  published  by  James  Parker,  in  Records  of  the  New  York  Stage 
from  1750  to  1860,  by  Joseph  N.  Ireland,  Vol.  I,  page  3. 

*  In  a  New  York  news  item  in  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette  of  March  6th, 
1750,  they  are  referred  to  as  "a  Company  of  comedians  from  Philadel- 
phia." History  of  the  American  Theatre,  by  George  O.  Seilhamer,  Vol. 
I,  page  6,  note. 


136 

into  which  were  stuck  so  many  candles.  The  orchestra  con- 
sisted of  a  German  flute,  a  horn  and  drums,  and  the  scenery 
included  two  drop  scenes  representing  a  castle  and  a  wood,  and 
bits  of  landscape,  river  and  mountain.4  Under  such  crude  con- 
ditions the  drama,  in  Shakespeare's  "  Richard  the  Third,"  was 
introduced,  so  far  as  we  positively  know,  to  the  colonial  town 
of  New  York. 

This  was  the  only  Shakespearian  play  given  by  the  company 
during  its  first  season,  but  it  was  repeated  on  March  12,  when 
the  farce,  "Beau  in  the  Suds,"  was  added,  and  on  April  30 
with  the  "  Mock  Doctor."  In  the  second  season  in  New  York, 
on  February  25,  1751,  we  find  the  first  instance  of  the  play 
being  given  for  a  benefit,  a  sure  indication  of  its  popularity, 
in  this  case  for  Mrs.  Taylor,  evidently  the  leading  lady,  and 
therefore  the  first  Queen  Elizabeth.  An  added  evidence  of 
its  drawing  powers  is  gathered  from  the  announcement,  which 
also  gives  an  idea  of  an  evening's  entertainment  of  the  time: 

By  his  Excellency's  Permission, 

At  the  Theatre  in  Nassau  Street, 

(For  the  Benefit  of  Mrs.  Taylor;) 

On  Monday  the  2$th  Instant  will  be  presented  the  tragical  history  of 
King  Richard  III.  To  which  well  be  added  a  Ballad  Opera  called  Damon 
and  Phillida  and  a  favourite  Dialogue  called  Jockey  and  Jenny  to  be  sung 
by  Mr.  Woodham  and  Mrs.  Taylor.  As  there  wasn't  much  company  at 
Love  for  Love,  the  Managers  took  the  Profit  arising  by  that  Night  to 
themselves  and  gave  Mrs.  Taylor  another  Benefit;  who  hopes  that  the 
Ladies  and  Gentlemen  that  favour'd  the  other  Benefit  will  be  so  kind  as  to 
favour  hers  with  their  Company.5 

In  the  following  seasons  it  was  frequently  so  used,  and  these 
benefit  announcements  throw  interesting  light  upon  the  per- 
sonnel of  the  troupe,  which  at  this  time  is  supposed  to  have 
numbered  at  least  seventeen.  Thus  one  performance  was 
given  for  the  benefit  of  Master  Dickey  Murray,  who  probably 
represented  the  earliest  Prince  Edward  or  Duke  of  York; 
another  was  for  Mr.  Jago,  "  as  he  has  never  had  a  benefit 
before  and  is  just  out  of  prison  " ;  and  one  was  advertised  for 

4  A  History  of  the  New  York  Stage,  from  the  First  Performances  in  1732 
to  1901,  by  T.  Allston  Brown.    New  York,  1903,  Vol.  I,  pages  2-3. 
6  Seilhamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  page  9. 


137 

Mrs.  Davis,  "  to  enable  her  to  pay  off  her  time,"  showing  that 
the  practice  of  indenture  obtained  in  theatrical  enterprise  as 
well  as  in  other  undertakings. 

When  the  company  is  next  heard  of,  the  manager  is  Robert 
Upton,  who  on  January  23,  1752,  appeared  as  Richard,  and 
thus  is  the  second  representative  of  the  part  in  America.  Up- 
ton had  been  sent  as  advance  agent  for  the  English  company, 
but  upon  his  arrival  in  New  York,  he  seized  the  opportunity  of 
a  star  engagement  with  native  performers.  Of  this  manager- 
actor  we  know  little,  and  his  season  was  a  short  one,  as  he 
soon  returned  to  England.  The  company  was  reorganized 
however,  and  in  existence  for  more  than  twenty  years,  but 
its  work  lay  chiefly  in  the  south  and  we  have  no  further  full 
accounts  of  the  performances.  We  know  that  it  was  in 
Annapolis  in  1752,  an  important  ^lcae__a^_that  time,  and  that 
"  Richard  the  Third  "  was  given  twice,  the  parts  of  Richard 
and  Richmond  being  taken  by  Wynell  and  Herbert  of  the  Eng- 
lish Company  which  had  just  come  over.6 

From  this  meager  account  of  the  Philadelphia  Comedians 
it  is  seen  that,  whether  made  up  of  amateurs  or  professional 
actors  who  had  found  their  way  to  America,  the  organization 
was  probably  of  native  origin,  and,  long  before  the  establish- 
ment of  an  English  company  here,  attempted  to  reproduce  in 
this  country  what  was  most  popular  in  London  at  the  time. 
In  this  early  transplanting  of  the  British  drama  across  the 
Atlantic,  "  Richard  the  Third  "  is  found  to  be  the  first  Shakes- 
pearian play  attempted  of  which  we  have  any  record,  and  seems 
to  have  proved  one  of  the  most  successful,  and  one  constantly 
in  requisition  for  special  theatrical  occasions.7 

8  Seilhamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  page  33. 

7  The  late  Judge  Charles  P.  Daly  established  the  existence  of  a  play- 
house in  New  York  as  early  as  1733,  but  finds  that  it  was  principally  used 
for  the  exhibition  of  puppet  shows  and  such  entertainments.  There  is 
also  evidence  that  in  Williamsburg,  Va.,  the  drama  had  been  cultivated 
as  early  as  1736,  from  the  notice  in  the  Virginia  Gazette  of  September  loth, 
which  read :  "  This  evening  wil  be  performed  at  the  Theatre  by  the  young 
Gentlemen  of  the  College,  the  Tragedy  of  '  Cato/  and  on  Monday,  Wednes- 
day and  Friday  next  will  be  acted  the  following  Comedies  by  the  young 
Gentlemen  and  Ladies  of  this  country — The  '  Busybody,'  the  '  Recruiting 


138 

In  the  meantime,  in  England,  the  American  field  offered 
tempting  prospects  for  speculation  in  dramatic  as  well  as  in 
other  lines.  In  1752,  therefore,  William  and  Lewis  Hallam, 
said  to  have  been  of  Goodman's  Fields,8  organized  a  company 
which  arrived  here  on  September  5  of  that  same  year.  There 
are  rumors  of  earlier  English  companies  here.  Anthony  Aston, 
the  contemporary  of  Colley  Gibber  and  the  continuator  of  his 
"  Lives  of  the  Actors,"  said  that  he  had  acted  in  New  York  in 
1732,  and  Moody,  an  actor  in  Garrick's  company  at  Drury 
Lane,  is  supposed  to  have  visited  Jamaica  in  1745,  and  there 
carried  on  the  first  dramatic  enterprise  in  America.  But  this 
company  brought  over  by  Lewis  Hallam  (for  William  Hallam 
was  merely  the  "  backer,"  and  did  not  accompany  the  actors 
to  America),  seems  to  be  the  first  regularly  organized  for  the 
American  field.  They  went  to  Williamsburg,  Virginia,  since 
the  south  offered  more  encouragement  to  theatrical  perform- 
ances than  the  Puritans  or  Dutch  in  the  north,  or  the  Quakers 
in  Philadelphia.  Only  two  of  their  performances  during  the 
first  season  have  been  recorded,  the  first,  according  to  Dunlap 
(who  obtained  the  account  from  Lewis  Hallam,  Jr.),  being 
"  Merchant  of  Venice  "9  with  "  Lethe  "  as  the  after  piece,10 

Officer '  and  the  '  Beaux  Stratagem.' "  Quoted  by  Seilhamer,  op.  cit., 
Vol.  I,  page  39.  There  is  evidence  of  a  play-house  at  Williamsburg  even 
earlier,  as  is  shown  by  the  description  of  the  town  given  by  Hugh  Jones 
in  The  Present  State  of  Virginia,  published  between  1710  and  1723.  He 
writes :  "  Not  far  from  hence  is  a  large  area  for  a  market  place,  near  which 
is  a  play-house  and  good  bowling  green."  American  Historical  Record, 
March,  1872.  There  are  evidences  of  a  theatre  of  some  kind  in  existence 
in  New  York  in  1736;  and  in  Boston  in  1750  two  young  Englishmen, 
assisted  by  young  men  of  the  town,  gave  a  performance  of  Otway's  Orphan 
at  a  coffee-house  in  King  Street.  Beyond  bare  reference  and  shadowy 
tradition  however,  little  is  known  of  these  earliest  native  efforts. 

8  Seilhamer  does  not  accept  this  tradition,  but  thinks  that  they  came  from 
a  provincial  theatre. 

8  In  1852  a  centennial  celebration  of  the  introduction  of  the  drama  into 
America  was  held  in  Castle  Garden,  when  The  Merchant  of  Venice  was 
given  in  commemoration  of  its  performance  at  Williamsburg  on  September 
5th,  1752.  The  Philadelphia  comedians  had  played  The  Merchant  of 
Venice  as  early  as  1751. 

10  John  Esten  Cooke  has  used  the  situation  of  this  performance  for  the 


139 

and  the  other  "  Othello  "  with  "  Harlequin  Collector."  In  1753 
the  company  went  to  New  York.  Among  the  earliest  plays 
there  was  "  Richard  the  Third,"11  which  was  given  "  by  par- 
ticular desire,"  on  November  12,  with  "  Devil  to  Pay."  The 
cast  was  as  follows: 

Richard Mr.  Rigby. 

Henry  VI Mr.  Hallam. 

Prince  of  Wales , Master  L.  Hallam. 

Duke  of  York Master  A.  Hallam. 

Richmond Mr.  Clarkson. 

Buckingham   Mr.  Malorie. 

Norfolk  Mr.  Miller. 

Stanley    Mr.  Singleton. 

Catesby  Mr.  Adcock. 

Lieutenant    Mr.  Bell. 

Queen   Elizabeth    Mrs.  Hallam. 

Lady   Anne    Mrs.  Adcock. 

Duchess  of  Rutland Mrs.  Rigby.12 

Of  this  Richard  we  know  nothing,  except  that  his  acting  of 
the  French  doctor  in  "  The  Anatomist "  made  that  piece  the 
most  popular  one  in  the  company's  repertoire.  He  was  evi- 
dently the  leading  actor,  playing  tragedy  and  high  comedy 
parts.13  The  theatre  in  which  they  played  was  one  built  for 
them  on  the  site  of  the  house  in  Nassau  Street  used  by  the 
older  comedians. 

In  1758  Hallam  was  again  in  New  York,  and  built  another 
theatre  on  Cruger's  Wharf,  where  on  February  7,  1759,  "  Rich- 
ard the  Third  "  was  given  with  "  Damon  and  Phillida."  The 
Richard  was  probably  Harman,  a  recruit  from  England,  with 
his  wife  as  Lady  Anne,  and  Mrs.  Douglass,  formerly  Mrs. 
Hallam,  as  Elizabeth,  while  young  Hallam  played  Richmond, 
a  "  star  "  cast  for  those  days.  The  conditions  must  have  been 

central  interest  in  his  Virginia  Comedians.  Great  liberty  is  taken  with 
dates,  however,  the  performance  being  placed  in  1763,  and  the  parts  of 
some  of  the  actors  are  confused. 

11  The  other  Shakespearian  plays  were  Lear,  on  January   14,   1754,  and 
Romeo  and  Juliet  on  the  28th. 

12  Seilhamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  page  53. 

18  Rigby  was  the  first  representative  in  America  of  Romeo  and  of  many 
other  stock  characters.  See  Ireland,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  page  18. 


140 

most  primitive,  for  the  building  was  evidently  little  more  than  a 
barn,  and  was  soon  after  demolished. 

In  the  following  seasons  at  Philadelphia,  Annapolis  and  New 
York,  "  Richard  the  Third  "  constantly  appeared  and  was  a 
favorite,  as  before,  for  benefits.  A  notable  performance  of 
these  early  days  was  that  at  the  Southwark  Theatre  in  Philadel- 
phia, where  "  Richard  the  Third  "  was  given  on  December  5, 
1766,  the  first  Shakespearian  play  performed  in  this  first  per- 
manent theatre  in  America.14  At  this  time  the  part  was  taken 
by  Lewis  Hallam  the  younger,  long  a  favorite  and  now  the 
leading  actor  of  the  country.  Douglass,  in  the  meantime,  was 
building  a  permanent  theatre  in  New  York  in  John  Street, 
which  was  opened  on  December  7,  1767,  and  where  "  Richard 
the  Third  "  was  played  on  the  I4th.15  The  audience  on  this 
occasion  was  the  attraction  rather  more  than  the  fortunes  of 
the  hero,  for  a  Cherokee  delegation,  visiting  General  Gage  at 
the  time,  was  present  at  the  play  and  excited  much  curiosity. 
The  Pennsylvania  Gazette  of  December  I7th  had  the  following 
item: 

"  The  expectation  of  seeing  the  Indian  chiefs  at  the  play  on  Monday 
night  occasioned  a  great  concourse  of  people.  The  house  was  crowded, 
and  it  is  said  great  numbers  were  obliged  to  go  away  for  want  of  room. 

"  The  Indians  regarded  the  play,  which  was  '  King  Richard  III/  with 
seriousness  and  attention,  but  as  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  they  were 
sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  language  to  understand  the  plot  and  design 
and  enter  into  the  spirit  of  the  author,  their  countenances  and  behavior 
were  rather  expressive  of  surprise  and  curiosity  than  any  other  passions. 
Some  of  them  were  much  surprised  and  diverted  at  the  tricks  of 
Harlequin."  ie 

14  During  this  season  the  first  performance  of  Cymbeline  in  America  took 
place  on  June  29,  1767.      Garrick's  version  was  used.      Godfrey's  Prince  of 
Parthia,  not  the  first  American  play,  as  has  been   asserted,   but  the   first 
written,  acted  and  printed  in  America,  was  played  for  the  first  and  only 
time  during  this  season. 

15  The  other  Shakespearian  plays  of  the  season  were  Cymbeline,  Romeo 
and  Juliet,  Lear,  Merchant  of  Venice,  Henry  the  Fourth,  Macbeth,  Othello, 
Hamlet,  and  Garrick's  version  of  Much  Ado,  Catherine  and  Petruchio.     See 
Seilhamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  pages  213-218. 

18  Seilhamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  pages  42  and  219.  Another  interesting  notice 
of  a  visit  of  an  Indian  "  emperor  "  and  "  empress  "  to  the  theatre  is  given 
on  page  220.  The  pantomime  here  given  was  harlequin's  Vagaries,  which 
had  highly  pleased  the  Indians  when  at  the  theatre  in  Williamsburg  in  1752. 


The  benefit  of  the  three  Misses  Storer,  on  May  2,  1768, 
shows  the  character  of  an  evening's  entertainment  when  the 
play  was  only  a  part  of  the  attraction.  "  Richard  the  Third  " 
was  the  piece ;  between  the  second  and  third  acts  Foote's  inter- 
lude of  "  Taste  "  was  performed,  and  between  the  third  and 
fourth  acts  Miss  Storer  sang  the  celebrated  song,  "  Sweet 
Echo  " ;  the  entertainment  ended  with  the  farce,  "  Miss  in  her 
Teens."  Another  theatrical  attraction  is  indicated  in  the  notice 
of  the  benefit  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Douglass  on  June  14,  1773, 
when  the  prologue  to  "  Richard  the  Third  "  was  delivered  by 
Mr.  Douglass  "  in  character  of  a  Master  Mason."17 

During  the  following  seasons  before  the  Revolution  "  Rich- 
ard the  Third  "  continued  to  be  popular  and  frequently  played, 
until  on  October  24,  1778,  Congress  passed  a  resolution  recom- 
mending a  suspension  of  all  amusements,  and  thus  brought  to  a 
close  the  colonial  period  of  the  American  stage.  Throughout 
this  period  Lewis  Hallam  had  held  the  part  of  Richard  without 
a  rival,  for  Rigby  seems  to  have  disappeared  from  the  bills 
very  soon.  In  appearance  Dunlap  describes  the  former  as  "  of 
middle  stature  or  above,  thin,  straight,  and  well  taught  as  a 
dancer  and  fencer  "  ;18  and  according  to  John  Bernard  in  his 
method  was  "  formed  more  on  the  model  of  Quin  than  of  Gar- 
rick."19 

Another  contemporary  wrote : 

"  No  one  could  tread  the  stage  with  more  ease  ...  In  tragedy  it  can 
not  be  denied  that  his  declamation  was  either  mouthing  or  ranting;  yet 
a  thorough  master  of  all  the  tricks  and  finesse  of  his  trade,  his  manner 
was  both  graceful  and  impressive,  '  tears  in  his  eyes,  distraction  in  his 
aspect,  a  broken  voice,  and  his  whole  function  suiting  with  forms  to  his 
conceit.'  He  was,  ...  at  Philadelphia  as  much  the  soul  of  the  South- 
wark  Theatre  as  ever  Garrick  was  of  Drury  Lane."  ** 

Of  the  women  who  had  taken  the  part  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
Mrs.  Douglass  was  the  most  notable.  She  had  played  "  legiti- 
mate "  roles  at  the  Wells  Theatre,  such  as  Lady  Percy  in 

17  Ireland,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  page  60. 

18  Op.  cit.,  page  81. 

19  Retrospections  in  America,  page  265. 

20  Memoirs  of  a  Life  Chiefly  Passed  in  Pennsylvania,  by  Captain  Graydon. 
Quoted  by  Seilhamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  page  202. 


142 

"  Henry  the  Fourth,"  Desdemona,  and  Angelica  in  "  Love  for 
Love,"  and  her  name  is  unbrokenly  connected  with  the  leading 
parts  on  the  American  stage  from  1752  to  the  Revolution. 
Mrs.  Harman  who  played  the  part  of  the  Duchess  of  York  in 
1766-7  and  Anne  in  1759-60,  is  of  interest  as  being  the  daugh- 
ter of  Charlotte  Charke  and  grand-daughter  of  Colley  Gibber. 
She  seems  to  have  been  a  useful  member  of  the  company  and 
was,  according  to  her  obituary,  "  a  just  actress,  possessed 
much  merit  in  low  comedy,  and  dressed  all  her  characters 
with  infinite  propriety,  but  her  figure  prevented  her  from  suc- 
ceeding in  tragedy  and  genteel  comedy."  Another  Elizabeth 
was  Mrs.  Morris,  for  a  time  the  greatest  attraction  in  the  com- 
pany, a  tall  stately  woman  of  the  Siddons  type,  invariably 
described  as  piquing  the  public  with  "  a  very  mysterious  man- 
ner." 

These  pre-Revolutionary  performances  offer  little  of  note 
in  themselves,  and  no  performer  in  them  is  now  remembered. 
Of  the  actual  conditions  which  obtained  we  know  little,  but 
they  probably  differed  in  no  wise  from  those  of  traveling 
companies  in  England.21  Of  most  interest  in  this  colonial 
period  is  the  natural  persistence  here  of  the  older  method  of 
acting,  when  in  England  the  star  of  Garrick  was  at  its  mer- 
idian; and  the  predominance  of  the  one  American  Company 
which  enjoyed  a  monopoly  of  the  theatrical  field  akin  to  that 
of  the  licensed  houses  in  London. 

The  Continental  Congress  had  put  a  period  to  theatrical 
activity  as  far  as  its  jurisdiction  extended,  but  the  stage  offered 
a  grateful  resource  to  the  British  officers  stationed  in  the 
larger  cities  in  the  enforced  idleness  of  winter  quarters.22 
Under  General  Burgoyne  in  Boston  theatricals  were  very  popu- 
lar, but  we  have  little  information  about  the  repertoire,  except 

21  It  is  interesting  to  find  some  features  of  the  early  history  of  the  drama 
repeated  in  America,  as  shown  in  the  laws  against  players,  the  prevalence 
of  strolling  companies,  the  necessity  of  recommendations  when  going  from 
one  place  to  another,  and  the  persistence  of  the  audience  upon  the  stage. 
This  last  was  abolished  by  Douglass  in  1761. 

22  For  a  full   discussion  of  this  entertaining  chapter  in  American  stage 
history,  see  Seilhamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  Chapters  II,  III  and  IV. 


143 

that  it  included  Mrs.  Centlivre's  "  Busybody,"  Rowe's  "  Tam- 
erlane," and  Hill's  "  Zara."  Of  the  performances  in  New 
York  our  information  is  more  extensive.  In  1777,  the  com- 
pany opened  the  John  Street  Theatre,  jocularly  called  Theatre 
Royal,  with  Fielding's  "  Tom  Thumb,"  and  until  1781,  per- 
formed throughout  the  successive  seasons  with  some  marked 
degree  of  success,  and  with  the  favor  of  Generals  Howe  and 
Clinton.  It  was  inevitable  that  "  Richard  the  Third  "  should 
have  been  chosen  for  performance,  but  the  first  record  of  it 
that  we  have  is  in  the  second  New  York  season,  on  March  6, 
1779,  when  it  was  given  with  "  The  Lying  Valet."  It  was 
repeated  on  March  18,  a  "  new  comic  dance  "  being  substituted 
for  the  farce,  and  again  on  April  26th,  these  closely  recurring 
repetitions  indicating  a  favorable  reception.  In  the  third  sea- 
son we  have  records  of  three  performances  of  "  Richard  the 
Third,"  on  March  6,  1780,  when  it  was  announced  that  the 
characters  would  be  "  dressed  in  the  Habits  of  the  •  times," 
suggesting  the  acquisition  of  stage  costumes  from  some  quar- 
ter, on  March  18,  and  on  April  ig.23  In  the  last  season  it 
appeared  once,  on  May  28,  with  "  The  Mayor  of  Garratt." 

When  Clinton's  Thespians,  as  they  were  called,  began  their 
performances,  the  young  subalterns  took  the  parts  of  women, 
but  in  the  second  season  they  announced  that  these  parts  were 
to  be  performed  "  by  young  ladies  and  grown  gentlewomen 
who  never  appeared  on  any  stage  before."  Later,  at  least  one 
professional  actress  was  numbered  among  them,  Mrs.  Tomlin- 
son,  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  American  Company  from 
1758  to  1772.  She  had  been  off  the  stage  nearly  six  years  at 
this  time,  but,  with  her  knowledge  of  stage-craft,  she  was  no 
doubt  a  valuable  member  of  this  amateur  company.  The  lead- 
ing lady  in  New  York  in  1779,  was  a  young  English  girl,  to 
whose  acting  high  praise  is  given.  It  is  conceivable  that,  in 
the  performances  of  "  Richard  the  Third,"  she  should  have 
represented  Elizabeth,  and  Mrs.  Tomlinson  the  Duchess  of 
York.  Dunlap  has  identified  some  of  the  performers  in  these 
plays,  as  Major  Williams,  of  the  artillery,  in  the  part  of  Rich- 

23  The  farces  were  Polly  Honeycomb,  Lethe,  and  Hob  in  the  Well. 


144 

ard,  Captain  Stephen  Payne  Adye,  Artillery  and  Judge  Advo- 
cate, in  that  of  Henry  the  Sixth,  and  Captain  Thomas  Shreve 
of  the  Lord  Mayor.24  The  young  and  handsome  Major  Andre, 
while  in  New  York  as  Clinton's  aide,  probably  took  part  in 
these  plays,  although  we  do  not  know  what  parts  he  assumed. 
He  gave  efficient  help  as  scene  painter  when  the  Thespians  were 
in  Philadelphia  in  1778,  and  these  scenes  were  used  for  many 
years  after  the  Revolution.25 

There  is  some  evidence  that  the  Continental  officers  craved 
like  entertainment,  and  attempted  theatrical  performances  in 
Philadelphia  in  1778,  but  Congress  promptly  put  a  stop  to  it  on 
the  grounds  that  "  frequenting  play-houses  and  theatrical  enter- 
tainments has  a  fatal  tendency  to  divert  the  minds  of  the  peo- 
ple from  a  due  attention  to  the  means  necessary  for  the  de- 
fense of  the  country  and  the  preservation  of  their  liberties."28 
According  to  a  letter  written  by  the  French  minister  on  Novem- 
ber 24,  the  prohibition  came  just  in  time  to  prevent  "  a  public 
(theatrical)  performance,  given  by  army  officers  and  Whig 
citizens."27 

In  the  south,  away  from  the  immediate  seat  of  operations, 
theatrical  activities  revived  as  early  as  1781,  when,  in  spite 
of  the  resolutions  of  Congress  in  1778,  a  Baltimore  company 
built  a  theatre  and  gave  a  season  from  January  to  June,  1782. 
The  history  of  this  company  is  of  little  importance,  most  of 
the  names  were  new  and  soon  disappeared  from  stage  annals, 
but  it  is  of  some  slight  interest  here  that  "  Richard  the  Third  " 
figured  as  the  play  with  which  the  Baltimore  theatre  opened, 
and  therefore  the  one  which  marked  the  revival  of  the  drama 
in  the  south.  Mr.  Wall,  the  manager,  took  the  leading  part 
and  his  wife  the  part  of  Elizabeth.  After  another  season  in 
Baltimore  in  which  "  Richard  the  Third "  was  performed 

"Lieutenant  Spencer  of  the  Queen's  Rangers  probably  figured  in  these 
plays,  for  in  1785,  we  find  him  in  Bath  performing  Richard  the  Third. 
Dunlap,  op.  cit.,  page  54. 

25  A  description  of  one  of  these  scenes  is  given  by  Durang  in  his  History 
of  the  Philadelphia  Stage,  and  quoted  by  Seilhamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II, 
page  31. 

28  Seilhamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  pages  51-2. 

91  Ditto,  page  52. 


145 

twice,  the  company,  under  the  management  of  Dennis  Ryan, 
came  to  New  York.  Here  "  Richard  the  Third  "  was  given  on 
August  13,  with  the  after  piece,  "  The  Citizen,"  by  Murphy. 
The  principal  parts  were  taken  by  amateurs,  perhaps  some  of 
the  military  Thespians.  Thus,  Queen  Elizabeth  was  by  a 
"  lady,"  and  Richard,  Richmond,  Tressel,  and  the  lieutenant 
of  the  Tower  by  "  gentlemen." 

During  the  Revolution,  the  American  Company  had  been 
in  Jamaica  from  1779  to  1782,  but  when  the  war  was  over, 
Hallam  returned  to  Philadelphia  and  New  York  and  felt  the 
public  pulse  with  a  series  of  "  entertainments."28  When,  after 
these  were  favorably  received,  he  ventured  to  announce  regular 
plays,  it  was  still  necessary  to  appease  the  anti-theatrical  ele- 
ment, particularly  strong  among  the  Quakers.  "  Richard  the 
Third  "  was  revived  in  Philadelphia,  therefore,  in  the  guise  of 
a  "  moral  dialogue,"  under  the  title  of  "  Fate  of  Tyranny." 
So  it  was  announced  on  July  23,  1788,  and  on  November  i,29 
but  the  prohibitions  against  dramatic  performances  were  re- 
pealed in  1789,  and  the  play  then  emerged  under  its  proper 
title. 

Hallam  opened  the  John  Street  theatre  in  1785  with  Henry, 
who  had  brought  from  England  the  best  company  yet  seen  in 

58  The  advertisement  for  one  of  these  suggests  that  Richard  the  Third 
may  have  been  foisted  upon  the  public  unaware.  Thus,  in  the  entertain- 
ment given  at  Philadelphia  on  December  2,  1784,  the  first  part  is  an- 
nounced thus :  "  A  serious  investigation  of  Shakespear's  morality  illustrated 
by  his  most  striking  characters  faithfully  applied  to  the  task  of  mingling 
profit  with  amusement.  On  the  first  evening  the  instability  of  human 
greatness ;  the  inevitable  and  miserable  consequences  of  vice ;  the  piercings 
of  a  wounded  conscience  and  the  divine  attributes  of  mercy  will  be  repre- 
sented according  to  the  animated  descriptions  of  the  illustrious  bard." 
This  entertainment  opened  with  a  "  Monody  "  to  the  memory  of  the  Chiefs 
who  had  fallen  in  the  cause  of  American  liberty,  and  closed  with  a 
"  Rondelay "  celebrating  the  independence  of  America.  Quoted  by  Seil- 
hamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  pages  165-6.  Another  entertainment  on  the  i4th 
of  January,  1785,  advertises  Garrick's  Ode  on  dedicating  a  building  to 
Shakespeare,  two  scenes  from  Loutherbourg's  Eudiphusicon,  much  admired 
in  London  at  the  time,  and  Garrick's  favorite  address  by  an  impoverished 
poet,  all  these  showing  the  dependence  on  London  attractions. 

29  Seilhamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  pages  245  and  248. 
11 


146 

America.  "  Richard  the  Third "  figures  no  less  than  three 
times  during  this  season  with  Hallam  as  Richard.  A  notable 
performance  was  that  on  February  3,  1787,  when  "  Richard 
the  Third  "  and  "  The  American  Citizen,"  were  acted  in  honor 
of  the  arrival  of  the  ship,  "  Empress  of  China,"  from  Canton, 
this  vessel  having  been  the  first  with  the  privilege  of  presenting 
the  American  flag  in  Chinese  waters.30  Later,  when  New  York 
became  the  national  capital,  we  find  it  frequently  given,  figur- 
ing as  one  of  the  chief  plays  during  the  last  days  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  original  American  Company. 

The  theatrical  situation  became  greatly  changed  during  the 
last  years  of  the  century.  The  American  Company  no  longer 
held  the  ground  undisputed,  for  these  years  are  marked  by  a 
growth  of  theatrical  enterprise  and  the  consequent  rise  of  man- 
agers who  rivaled  each  other  in  securing  the  best  English 
talent  available.  Among  the  recruits  which  the  envoy  of  the 
American  Company  brought  from  England  at  this  time,  the 
most  important  was  John  Hodgkinson.  In  the  season  of 
1793-4  he  made  his  first  appearance  at  John  Street  in  tragedy 
as  "  Richard  the  Third,"  and  he  remained  the  leading  Richard 
of  the  company  during  its  remaining  years  at  this  theatre.31 
A  contemporary  description  of  Hodgkinson's  performance  of 
this  part  is  tempered  with  more  restraint  than  usually  shown 
when  reporting  the  impression  made  by  a  "  star."  It  ran  thus : 

"  Though  we  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  Mr.  Hodgkinson  equals  a 
Kemble,  yet  he  certainly  did  great  justice  to  the  part.  His  action  was 
violent,  as  the  character  requires,  and  at  the  same  time  not  unstrained. 
If  we  must  censure  him,  it  is  for  his  manner  of  speaking — he  lets  his  voice 
fall  too  suddenly,  speaking,  to  borrow  a  term  from  music,  in  octaves;  he, 
however,  excels  any  that  ever  appeared  here  in  the  character  of  Richard."  ** 

"  T.  A.  Brown,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  pages  8-9. 

n  A  Narrative  of  his  Connection  with  the  Old  American  Company. 
From  the  Fifth  of  September,  1792,  To  the  Thirty-First  of  March,  1797, 
by  John  Hodgkinson.  New  York,  1797.  This  gives  some  account  of  the 
theatrical  business  transactions  of  the  time,  but  throws  little  light  on  stage 
conditions.  He  does  give  an  item  about  the  orchestra,  which  he  says  "  was 
composed  of  about  six  musicians,  some  of  whom  were  incapable  of  their 
business." 

82  Seilhamer,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  Ill,  page  61. 


147 

Later  he  was  called  the  "  American  Kemble,"  while  John 
Bernard,  who  greatly  admired  him,  gave  him  the  name  of  the 
"  provincial  Garrick  " ;  and  these  titles  do  not  seem  to  have  been 
due  entirely  to  hyperbole,  for  Hodgkinson's  successes  at  Bath 
and  Bristol  before  he  came  to  America,  were  notable.  He 
is  described  by  Dunlap  who  was  closely  associated  with  him, 
as  "  six  feet  ten  inches  in  height,  but  too  fleshy  to  appear  tall — 
well  formed  in  the  neck,  chest,  shoulders  and  arms,  but  clumsy 
in  his  lower  extremities,  his  ankles  being  thick  and  his  knees 
inclining  inward.  His  face  was  round,  his  nose  broad,  and 
his  eyes,  which  were  of  unequal  sizes,  gray,  with  large  pupils 
and  dark  eyelashes.  His  complexion  was  almost  colorless  and 
his  hair  dark-brown."  With  such  personal  qualities,  his 
adoption  of  the  Kemble  manner  was  inevitable.  Mrs.  Melmoth, 
who  played  the  part  of  Elizabeth  to  Hodgkinson's  Richard, 
had  been  a  successful  actress  at  Drury  Lane  in.  1776-7,  before 
that  at  Covent  Garden ;  and  while  her  figure  was  at  this  time 
ill-adapted  for  most  parts,  her  acting  was  excellent  enough  to 
render  her  a  leading  performer. 

In  the  meantime  Thomas  Wignell  had  opened  the  Chestnut 
Street  Theatre  in  Philadelphia,33  built  on  the  model  of  Covent 
Garden,  with  scenery  painted  from  designs  by  De  Louther- 
bourg  and  both  scenery  and  wardrobe  imported  from  England. 
"  Richard  the  Third  "  was  given  in  this  new  theatre  on  April 
21,  1795,  probably  with  James  Fennell  as  Richard  and  Mrs. 
Whitlock  as  Elizabeth.  In  Boston  under  Powell,  and  in  New- 
port under  Joseph  Harper,  theatrical  companies  were  making 
their  way  against  public  opposition  and  in  these  places  "  Rich- 
ard the  Third  "  was  in  constant  requisition.  It  seems  unneces- 
sary to  follow  its  fortunes  in  all  of  these  centers,  and  therefore 

83  It  was  at  this  theatre  that  Mrs.  Merry  (Elizabeth  Brunton),  considered 
a  rival  of  Mrs.  Siddons,  and  the  first  actress  of  eminence  to  cross  the 
Atlantic,  was  introduced  to  the  American  public.  I  have  found  no  record 
of  her  appearance  in  Richard  the  Third,  but  it  is  more  than  probable  that 
it  was  in  her  repertoire.  Aside  from  her  importance  in  connection  with 
the  stage  in  this  country,  Mrs.  Merry  is  of  some  curious  interest  as  being 
the  means  of  bringing  America  into  touch  with  the  Delia  Cruscan  vogue 
of  the  day,  for  her  husband,  Robert  Merry,  Delia  Crusca,  accompanied 
her  and  here  spent  the  last  years  of  his  life. 


148 

the  history  of  the  play  will  hereafter  be  noted  in  New  York 
only,  as  being  typical  of  its  history  elsewhere. 

The  last  performance  at  the  John  Street  Theatre  took  place 
on  January  13,  1798,  and  with  the  opening  of  the  Park 
Theatre34  on  January  29  of  the  same  year,  a  new  era  began 
for  New  York  theatricals.  This  was  the  first  well-equipped 
theatre  in  New  York,  for  the  John  Street  house  was  a  barn- 
like  building  of  modest  pretensions.  A  description  of  the  new 
theatre  in  the  Daily  Advertiser  of  January  31,  tells  us: 

"  The  stage  was  everything  that  could  be  wished,  The  scenery  was 
executed  in  a  most  masterly  style.  The  extensiveness  of  the  scale  upon 
which  the  scenes  are  executed,  the  correctness  of  the  designs,  and  the 
elegance  of  the  painting,  presented  the  most  beautiful  views  which  the 
imagination  can  conceive.  The  scenery  was  of  itself  worth  a  visit  to 
the  theatre." 

It  opened  under  the  management  of  Hodgkinson  and  Wil- 
lian  Dunlap,  and  was  the  house  that  for  a  half  century 
presented  the  best  of  dramatic  and  histrionic  art  in  America. 
In  the  history  of  this  theatre  we  find  "  Richard  the  Third  "  in 
the  regular  stock  repertoire,  constantly  given,  used  to  open  the 
season,  the  attraction  year  after  year,  and  the  last  tragedy 
acted  in  this  house  fifty  years  later.  It  was  therefore  the  last 
tragedy  given  under  the  management  of  the  old  American 
Company,  which  first  presented  this  play  in  Nassau  Street,  for 
their  history  ends  with  this  theatre. 

At  the  beginning  of  these  fifty  years  we  find  Hodgkinson 
taking  the  leading  parts.  After  he  left  New  York  in  1802, 
Thomas  A.  Cooper,  who  after  a  promising  trial  in  London, 
had  engaged  with  Wignell  at  Phidadelphia  in  1797,  became  the 
leading  tragedian  in  New  York,  and,  after  his  predecessor's 
death,  in  1805,  in  America.85  He  was  a  "  paramount  favorite 
with  the  public  "  for  thirty  years,  and  kept  this  position  even 
after  the  advent  of  George  Frederick  Cooke,  and  until  the 

84  A  picture  of  the  first  Park  Theatre,  copied  from  a  rare  print,  may  be 
found  in  The  American  Historical  Record  of  March,  1872. 

88  Cooper  was  educated  by  Godwin,  and  had  been  trained  for  the  stage 
by  Holcroft.  He  became  a  leader  in  the  social  life  of  New  York,  and  was 
allied  by  marriage  with  some  of  the  best  families  of  the  state.  His  second 
wife  was  the  Sophy  Sparkle  (Miss  Mary  Fairlie)  of  Irving's  Salmagundi. 
Ireland,  op.  cit.t  Vol.  I,  page  156. 


149 

appearance  of  Kean  and  Booth.36  John  Bernard  ranks  him 
high,  and  speaks  of  him  as  "endowed  with  great  genius,  and 
the  highest  qualifications  in  face,  voice  and  person,"  but  as 
having  little  or  no  art  and  never  striving  to  attain  it.37  He 
was  of  the  Kemble  school,  declamatory,  stately,  "  worthy  of 
imitation  both  by  pulpit  and  bar,"  says  a  contemporary,  but 
his  "  Richard  the  Third  "  is  denominated  by  the  same  authority 
"  an  execrable  performance."38 

The  erratic  Fennell,  already  mentioned  as  one  of  Wignell's 
company  in  Philadelphia,  an  actor  of  some  note  in  English  and 
Scotch  theatres  and  boasting  the  acme  of  theatrical  experience 
in  having  acted  with  Mrs.  Siddons,  seems  to  have  taken 
Cooper's  place  during  the  latter's  absence  in  Europe  in  1804. 
We  have  several  records  of  his  appearance  up  to  1810,  just 
before  Cooke's  arrival.  He  was  a  towering  person,  with  a 
full  fleshy  face,  and  deep  solemn  voice,  his  coldness  and  stiff- 
ness fitting  him  for  characters  like  Brutus,  and  his  Richard 
showing  the  same  Kemble-like  qualities  as  that  of  his  prede- 
cessors.39 

Up  to  the  arrival  of  George  Frederick  Cooke,  therefore,  we 
find  that  the  theatre  in  America  had  made  rapid  advance  to- 
ward more  cosmopolitan  conditions.  While  the  only  actor  of 
more  than  third-rate  ability  seems  to  have  been  Hodgkinson, 
all  of  the  three  last  mentioned  are  of  interest  as  exhibiting 
the  Kemble  tradition  in  America.  They  represented  at  that 
time  a  new  school.  Jonathan  Oldstyle,  commenting  upon  the 
actors  of  the  day,40  says  that  they  "  prefer  walking  upon  plain 

86  Ireland,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  pages  156-7. 
37  Op.  cit.,  page  267. 

88  F.  C.  Wemyss,  Twenty-Six  Years  of  the  life  of  an  Actor  and  Manager, 
page  96.      Although  I  find  no  record  of  it,  Mrs.  Whitlock,  Mrs.   Siddon's 
sister,    called   the   "  American    Siddons,"    probably   played    in   Richard    the 
Third  with  Cooper.      She  seems  to  have  been  of  the  Kemble  type,  master- 
ful, yet  graceful,  and  with  an  exquisite  voice. 

89  Fennell's  biography,  as  it  appears  in  his  Apology  (Philadelphia,   1814), 
filled  with  Utopian  schemes  and  experiments  in  salt-making,  bridge-building, 
and  what  not,  is  of  more  interest  than  his  achievements  on  the  stage. 

40  Mrs.  Villiers,  whom  Irving  mentions  in  Salmagundi  as  the  Lady  Mac- 
beth of  the  day,  also  figured  in  Richard  the  Third  when  Fennell  was  leading 
man.  Knickerbocker  Edition,  1871,  pages  14-17. 


150 

ground  to  strutting  on  the  stilts  used  by  the  tragic  heroes  of 
my  day,"  and  speaks  of  the  ranting  and  roaring  tragedian  as 
almost  banished  from  the  New  York  stage.  The  staging  of 
plays  could  be  favorably  compared  with  the  practice  in  Lon- 
don, although  the  enthusiasm  for  archeological  reproductions 
seems  not  yet  to  have  reached  our  shores.  Irving  shows  that 
there  was  the  same  incongruity  in  costume  here  as  in  the  Lon- 
don theatres,  remarking  that  the  performers  dress  for  the 
same  piece  in  the  fashions  of  different  ages  and  countries,  "  so 
that  while  one  actor  is  strutting  about  the  stage  in  the  cuirass 
and  helmet  of  Alexander,  another,  dressed  up  in  a  gold-laced 
coat  and  bag-wig,  with  a  chapeau  de  bras  under  his  arm,  is 
taking  snuff  in  a  fashion  of  one  or  two  centuries  back,  and 
perhaps  a  third  figures  in  Suwarrow  boots,  in  the  true  style  of 
modern  buckism."41  We  find  no  records  of  innovation  in  any 
line,  and  see  here  as  in  London,  the  Gibber  text  the  exclusive 
one,  and  with  no  further  changes  than  were  probably  intro- 
duced in  following  Kemble. 

The  most  important  event  for  the  American  stage,  and  for 
the  history  of  the  play  in  this  country,  in  bringing  it  into  un- 
precedented prominence,  was  the  arrival  of  George  Frederick 
Cooke  in  1810.  He  opened  his  engagement  in  America  with 
"  Richard  the  Third,"  and  played  it  frequently  during  the  sea- 
son. With  the  same  play  he  began  all  of  his  successive  en- 
gagements, and  appeared  in  it  repeatedly  throughout  his  con- 
nection with  the  New  York  stage,  which  continued  until  1812. 
The  acting  of  Cooke,  his  London  success,  his  appearance  with 
Kemble,  and  his  later  rivalry  with  Edmund  Kean,  have  already 
been  touched  upon  and  need  not  be  repeated  here.  His  career 

41  The  Letters  of  Jonathan  Oldstyle,  Gent.  By  the  author  of  the  Sketch 
Book.  Oldstyle's  correspondent,  speaking  of  some  of  the  efforts  made 
for  more  congruous  stage  appointments,  says :  "  The  honest  King  of 
Scotland,  who  used  to  dress  for  market  and  theatre  at  the  same  time,  and 
wear  with  his  kelt  and  plaid  his  half  boots  and  black  breeches,  looking 
half  king,  half  cobbler,  has  been  obliged  totally  to  dismiss  the  former  from 
his  royal  service ;  yet  I  am  happy  to  find,  so  obstinate  is  his  attachment 
to  old  habits,  that  all  their  efforts  have  not  been  sufficient  to  dislodge  him 
from  the  strong  hold  he  has  in  the  latter.  They  may  force  him  from 
the  boots — but  nothing  shall  drive  him  out  of  the  breeches." 


151 

in  America  was  short,  but  rilled  with  unprecedented  triumphs 
that  were  lessened  only  by  his  own  weakness  in  giving  himself 
up  to  his  evil  habits.  His  acting,  the  first  of  a  preeminent 
artist  that  America  had  seen,42  left  its  impress  on  this  country 
for  many  years.  Fennell,  the  leading  actor  here  at  the  time, 
modified  his  method  after  seeing  the  great  English  actor,  and 
others  made  him  the  subject  of  minute  imitation.  Among 
these  John  Duff  was  the  best  known,  his  Richard  being  "  so 
closely  after  the  manner  of  Cooke,  as  to  require  the  keenest 
scrutiny  to  detect  a  variation  " ;  and  the  "  extraordinary  imita- 
tion of  Cooke  "  by  a  certain  Mr.  Bibly  is  also  recorded.43 

The  coming  of  Cooke  to  America  in  1810,  prepared  the  way 
for  the  greater  Edmund  Kean,  whose  first  visit  occurred  in 
1820.  He  opened  his  engagement  with  "  Richard  the  Third  " 
as  had  Cooke,  and  it  was  his  important  role  during  this  and 
his  later  visit  in  i825.44  There  seems  little  to  add  to  what  has 
already  been  said  concerning  Kean  in  his  English  career.  His 
visits  are  important  chiefly  because  of  the  indication  they  give 
of  the  attractions  of  an  American  engagement,  and  his  influ- 
ence here  seems  not  to  have  been  so  widespread  as  that  of 
Cooke  or  particularly  of  Booth.  The  American  records  of  his 
successes  differ  quite  markedly  in  tone  from  those  written  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  for  here  an  offensive  attitude 
later  dubbed  "  a  certain  condescension  in  foreigners,"  was 
noticed  and  resented. 

Between  Kean's  first  and  second  visits  his  great  imitator, 

42  A    detailed    description    of    Cooke's    Richard    the    Third    is    given    in 
Memoirs  of   the  Life   of  George  Frederick   Cooke,  Esquire,  Late   of   the 
Theatre  Royal,  Covent  Garden,  by  William  Dunlap,  New  York,   1813,  Vol. 
II,  pages  391-4.     Cooke  was  the  first  of  the  great  English  "stars"  to  cross 
the  Atlantic.      The  Park  Theatre  managers  tried  to  induce  John  Kemble 
and  Mrs.  Siddons  to  come  to  America  for  an  engagement,  but  the  dread 
of    the    ocean    voyage    overruled    any    attractions    that    might    attend    an 
American  tour. 

43  Ireland,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  pages  297  and  308. 

44  In  connection  with  Kean's  opening  appearance  as  Richard  at  the  Park, 
on  his  second  visit,  one  of  the  worst  riots  in  our  history  occurred,  because 
of  the  resentment  of  his  conduct  in  Boston  in   1821.      See  T.  A.  Brown, 
op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  pages  27-8. 


152 

or  as  some  of  his  biographers  would  have  it,  his  great  double,45 
Junius  Brutus  Booth,  came  to  America.  His  first  appearance 
was  on  October  5,  1821,  in  the  New  Park  Theatre,  the  finest 
one  New  York  had  yet  had,  with  a  large,  commodious  stage 
and  well  illuminated  with  patent  oil-lamps.  Booth's  initial 
appearance  was  in  "  Richard  the  Third,"  a  part  he  constantly 
used  until  the  end  of  his  career  thirty  years  later.  His  Rich- 
ard needs  few  words  of  description,46  for  it  was  a  wonderfully 
close  counterpart  of  Kean's  in  general  method  and  in  detail, 
though  according  to  contemporary  witnesses,  with  greater 
emphasis  upon  what  was  terrible  in  the  character  rather  than 
upon  its  pathetic  possibilities.  Booth  was  for  years  without  a 
rival,  and  "  the  little  lunatic  giant  of  the  stage,"  with  his  im- 
passioned manner,  overwrought  emotions  and  awe-striking 
impersonations  seemed  to  appeal  to  the  American  audience  in 
a  greater  degree  than  did  the  undoubtedly  more  subtle  inter- 
pretation of  Kean.47 

An  explanation  of  this  may  be  found  in  the  career  of  Edwin 
Forrest,  the  first  great  native  actor  of  America,  whose  appear- 
ance as  "  Richard  the  Third  "48  took  place  on  January  23, 
1827,  at  the  Bowery  Theatre.48  Forrest's  interpretations,  as 
did  Cooke's  and  Booth's,  emphasized  the  darker  and  more  ter- 

48  Notably  in  The  Elder  and  Younger  Booth,  by  Asia  Booth  Clarke,  Bos- 
ton, 1882. 

40 An  analysis  of  Booth's  Richard  is  given  in  The  Tragedian;  An  Essay 
on  the  Histrionic  Genius  of  Junius  Brutus  Booth,  by  Thomas  R.  Gould. 
New  York,  1868. 

4TA  thrilling  account  was  given  by  Count  Joannes  (George  Jones)  to 
T.  A.  Brown,  who  reports  it  in  his  History  of  the  New  York  Stage  (Vol. 
I,  page  1 08),  of  a  real  fight  between  himself  and  Booth  when  he  was 
playing  Richmond  to  the  latter's  Richard.  Booth,  intoxicated  and  half 
insane,  thinking  himself  a  real  Richard,  made  a  savage  attempt  to  kill  his 
enemy.  The  audience,  believing  it  to  be  excellent  acting,  applauded 
enthusiastically.  It  was  only  when  Booth,  exhausted  and  half  fainting, 
was  pinioned  to  the  floor,  that  the  play  could  end  with  some  appearance 
of  order. 

48  Forrest  had  played  Richmond  to  Kean's  Richard  during  the  latter's 
second  visit  to  America  in  1825. 

48  This  was  a  new  house  at  the  time,  and  notable  in  our  stage  annals 
as  making  the  first  experiment  in  American  theatres  in  lighting  with  gas, 
a  most  important  innovation  in  regard  to  stage  setting. 


153 

rible  aspects  of  character.  It  was  a  time  when  America  was 
not  entirely  freed  from  the  crudity  of  the  colonial  period,  and 
the  actor  of  popular  favor  was  one  whose  emotions  were  violent 
and  patent,  and  who  had  a  genius  for  making  brilliant  points, 
rather  than  for  illuminating  every  part  of  the  character.  But 
while  Forrest  enjoyed  the  greatest  popularity  and  gained  the 
highest  reputation  in  such  a  violent  part  as  Metamora,  his 
Richard  was  never  greatly  in  favor.  This  may  have  been  due 
to  his  conception  of  the  character.  His  friend  and  biographer, 
James  Rees  (Colley  Gibber),  says  it  was  an  original  one,  mak- 
ing Richard  "  towering  and  lofty,  equally  impetuous  and  com- 
manding ...  a  royal  usurper,  a  princely  hypocrite — a  tyrant 
and  a  murderer  of  the  house  of  Plantagenet."  He  tells  us 
that  his  idea  of  Richard's  person  Forrest  took  from  the  por- 
trait in  the  fifth  volume  of  the  "  Paston  Letters/'  and  from  the 
representation  of  the  Countess  of  Desmond,  whose  flattering 
description  of  Richard  at  a  royal  party  as  the  handsomest  man 
in  the  room,  except  his  brother,  Edward  IV,  stands  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  usual  descriptions,  such  as  More's.50  His 
justification,  he  claimed,  was  based  upon  historical  authority, 
and  he  refused,  when  Shakespeare  was  urged  as  the  final  au- 
thority for  the  stage,  to  "  so  distort  Richard."51  So  in  his 
dressing  of  the  part  he  entirely  disregarded  the  traditional  de- 
formity, as  he  credited  Richard  with  the  skill  to  disguise  it. 
Forrest's  biographer  rather  naively  avers  that,  "  if  he  could 
have  impressed  his  audience  with  the  same  idea  he  had  of  it,  we 
should  have  had  an  American  actor  to  claim  the  honor  of  being 
the  best  that  ever  trod  the  stage."52  It  is  certainly  of  interest 
to  find  that  the  princely  conception  does,  in  some  measure,  anti- 
cipate the  later  ideas  of  Irving  and  Edwin  Booth,  a  conception, 
however,  which  required  a  more  complex  psychology  than 

00  The  Life  of  Edwin  Forrest.      With  Reminiscences  and  Personal  Recol- 
lections.    Philadelphia  (1874),  pages  252-4. 

01  This  is  curiously  based  on  the  assumpton  that  Richard  is  "  the   only 
one^  who  descants  upon  his  personal  defects."     A  reference  to  the  speeches 
of  Margaret  or  Anne,  it  would  seem,  would  have  disproved  this. 

62  Rees,  op.  cit.,  page  256. 


154 

Forrest's  to  make  convincing.53  The  Edwin  Forrest  edition 
of  "  Richard  the  Third,"64  for  he  had  his  own  version  of  the 
Gibber  text,  shows  few  changes  from  the  original,  except  fre- 
quent omission  of  lines,  the  introduction  of  the  four  from 
Shakespeare  at  the  beginning  of  the  opening  soliloquy,  adopted 
by  most  performers  at  this  time,  and  the  retention  of  Rich- 
mond's prayer  in  the  tent  scene,  and  of  a  few  lines  in  the 
wooing  scene  which  were  omitted  in  the  original  Gibber  ver- 
sion. The  play  ends  with  Richard's  dying  speech  and  a  tab- 
leau of  soldiers  crying  "  Long  live  Henry  the  Seventh,  King 
of  England !  " 

A  new  but  shortlived  interest  entered  into  American  theat- 
ricals when  Charles  Kean,  after  first  establishing  his  reputa- 
tion in  America  in  1830,  in  the  character  in  which  his  father 
had  been  so  distinguished,  returned  in  1846  and  gave  "  Richard 
the  Third  "  in  the  Park  Theatre,  "  with  unexampled  magnifi- 
cence of  scenery,  dresses,  armors,  banners,  equipments  and 
properties  of  every  kind,  at  a  cost  of  ten  thousand  dollars." 
The  first  performance  was  given  on  January  7,  and  the  play 
ran  for  three  weeks,  an  unprecedented  length  in  America.55 
These  performances,  elaborate  in  setting,  unequalled  in  cor- 
rectness and  splendor,  were  a  repetition  of  those  already  pre- 
sented in  London,  and  have  been  discussed.  The  history  of 
elaborate  staging  at  this  time  came  to  an  early  end.  In  1848, 
Hamblin,  the  manager  of  the  Park  Theatre,  used  the  scenery 
that  Kean  had  left  and  gave  a  splendid  performance  of  "  Rich- 
ard the  Third,"  acting  the  leading  part  himself,  but  the  play, 
in  those  first  days  of  the  extreme  popularity  of  the  opera, 
failed  to  attract.  This  attempt,  aside  from  exhibiting  the 
public  preference  at  the  time,  has  some  added  interest  from 

53  One  of  the  interesting  facts  in  regard  to  Forrest's  performances  is 
that,  in  1837,  Charlotte  Cushman  played  Queen  Elizabeth  to  his  Richard 
at  the  Park  Theatre.  See  Ireland,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  page  220. 

"Richard  III.  No.  5  of  the  Edwin  Forrest  Edition  of  Shakespearian 
Plays.  Correctly  marked  with  the  kind  permission  of  the  Eminent 
Tragedian,  from  his  own  prompt-book,  and  as  acted  by  him  at  Niblo's 
Garden,  N.  Y.  Under  the  Management  of  James  M.  Nixon,  Esq.  (No 
date),  New  York. 

68  Ireland,  op.  cit.,  page  450. 


155 

the  fact  that  it  was  the  last  tragedy  performed  in  the  Park 
Theatre,  for,  a  few  days  after,  the  theatre  was  destroyed  by 
fire,  and  with  it  all  of  the  properties  that  had  given  to  America 
the  first  example  of  gorgeous  staging.56 

During  the  first  fifty  years  or  so  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
accompanying  this  succession  of  English  luminaries  upon  our 
stage,  such  a  grotesque  procession  of  youthful  prodigies  and 
incongruous  histrions  makes  its  appearance,  that  it  seems 
worth  while  to  give  some  attention  to  this  curious  and,  in  some 
respects,  significant  chapter  in  our  stage  annals.  While  the 
history  of  the  youthful  prodigy  in  America  may  be  said  to 
date  from  the  performances  of  John  Howard  Payne,57  the  first 
recorded  appearance  of  a  boy  Richard  is  in  January,  1821, 
when  Master  George  Frederick  Smith,  a  boy  of  eleven  years, 
after  playing  Young  Norval  in  Home's  "  Douglas,"  essayed 
this  part.  He  seems  to  have  had  only  a  measurable  success, 
for  Ireland  records  that  he  was  "  somewhat  attractive  for  a 
few  nights ;  "58  but  he  was  brought  forward  again  in  March, 
1822.  In  1831,  we  hear  of  a  little  son  of  Mrs.  Jones,  an 
actress,  introduced  on  the  stage  at  The  Bowery  as  a  prodigy 
in  "  Richard  the  Third/'  but  quite  decidedly  disappointing  his 
mother's  hopes.59  Master  Joseph  Burke,  eleven  years  of  age, 
acted  Richard  so  well  that  "  none  sneered  at  the  absurdity  of 
a  child's  assuming  such  parts."60  Master  Mangeon's  perform- 
ance at  The  Bowery  on  June  7,  1832,  had  "  some  boyish 
merit,"61  and  we  find  the  mention  of  a  Master  Bowers  from 

60  The  Park  Theatre  burned  down  December   16,    1848.      With  it  went 
the  last  vestige  of  the  old  American  Company,  which  first  appeared  at  the 
Nassau  Street  Theatre  in  1753.     Ireland,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  pages  525-6. 

67  The  only  native  American  of  celebrity  on  the  stage  until  the  appearance 
of  Forrest.     He  made  his  first  entry  in  1809,  at  the  age  of  seventeen,  as 
young  Norval. 

68  Ireland,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  page  373- 

69  Ditto,  page  506. 

80  Ireland,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  page  642.  He  made  his  debut  in  Cork  as 
Tom  Thumb  when  five  years  of  age.  For  his  remarkable  performances 
in  drama  and  music,  see  Hutton,  Curiosities  of  the  American  Stage,  pages 
229-230. 

61  Ditto,  Vol.  II,  page  23. 


156 

Philadelphia  at  the  Park  Theatre  in  June,  i834.62  Stranger 
still,  it  was  a  part  assumed  by  tiny  heroines.  The  "  infant 
wonder  "  of  1838  was  Miss  J.  M.  Davenport,  aged  eleven 
years,  who  played  Richard  to  her  mother's  Queen  Elizabeth. 
Probably  the  most  youthful  Richard  on  record  is  one  of  the 
famous  Bateman  sisters,  Ellen,  who  when  four  years  of  age, 
played  this  part,  her  sister  Kate,  two  years  older,  taking  the 
part  of  Richmond.  This  remarkable  exhibition  took  place  on 
December  10,  1849,  at  tne  Broadway  Theatre.63 

During  these  years  several  women  made  some  reputation  in 
the  character.  In  1827,  at  The  Bowery,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  H.  A. 
Williams  gave  a  performance  in  which  Mrs.  Williams  took  the 
part  of  Richard  and  her  husband  played  Richmond.  A  Mrs. 
Herring,  who  played  Queen  Elizabeth  to  Booth's  Richard  in 
1833,  appeared  in  the  title  role  on  June  27,  1835,  and  was  said 
to  have  shown  "  a  force  and  vigor  truly  astonishing."64  A 
few  years  after,  Mrs.  Pritchard,  an  actress  "  with  the  taint  of 
the  Ring  attached  to  her,"  performed  Richard  in  an  appro- 
priately "  spirited  "  manner.  In  1836,  Mrs.  H.  Lewis  opened 
her  season  at  the  Park  Theatre  as  Richard  the  Third,  and 
later  her  engagement  at  the  Franklin  Theatre  as  star  with  the 
same  part.  Annie  Hathaway  and  Fanny  Herring  played  Rich- 
ard and  Richmond  together  in  i86o,85  and  the  Batemans  in 
1861  repeated  at  the  Astor  Place  Theatre  the  characters  which 
they  had  played  as  children. 

"  Richard  the  Third  "  seems  to  have  lent  itself  to  all  kinds 
of  theatrical  ventures.  As  in  London  it  had  been  given  at 
Astley's  as  a,  circus  attraction,66  so  at  the  Bowery  Theatre  in 

*  Ditto,  page  114. 

83  Clara  Fisher,  called  "  a  Kean  in  miniature,"  is  about  the  first  of  whom 
we  have  any  record  as  figuring  in  Richard  the  Third,  but  her  juvenile 
efforts  were  confined  to  England,  where,  when  she  was  six  years  old,  she 
appeared  in  a  burlesque  masque  called  Lord  Flinnip,  introducing  the  fifth 
act  of  Richard  the  Third.  Ireland,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  page  536. 

64  Ireland,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  page  88. 

65  T.  A.  Brown,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  page  336. 

88  A  spirited  defence  of  such  a  setting  for  the  dramas  of  Shakespeare 
appears  in  a  letter  of  Thomas  Wooler,  a  manager,  to  Elliston  of  Drury 
Lane,  in  1833,  where  he  writes:  "What  think  you  of  mounting  Shake- 


157 

1840,  Charles  Mason  used  the  battle  scene  of  Act  V  to  exhibit 
an  equestrian  performance.  The  versatile  Charlotte  Crampton 
played  Richard  at  the  Chatham  Theatre  and  in  the  last  act 
performed  wonderful  feats  with  her  trained  horses.  Later  in 
a  benefit  at  the  New  Bowery  Theatre  in  1862,  Richard  is  pre- 
sented on  horse-back  in  the  battle  scene  by  Harry  Seymour, 
and  the  device  found  favor  in  subsequent  performances.  This 
play  was  used  in  many  an  eccentric  attempt,  such  as  that  of 
Elder  Addams,  the  Mormon  preacher-actor,  who  gave  a 
strange  exhibition  on  November  29  and  30,  1847,  at  the  Bow- 
ery Theatre,  or  the  ridiculous  feats  of  Count  Joannes,  well- 
known  to  the  New  York  stage  forty  years  ago,  or  of  Dr. 
Landis  from  Philadelphia  with  his  imaginary  company,67 
which  closed  the  history  of  theatrical  performances  in  Tam- 
many Theatre.  As  early  as  1866,  at  the  Neu  Stadt,  "  Richard 
the  Third  "  was  on  the  boards  of  a  German  theatre,  and  it 
remained  in  the  repertoire  of  the  Bowery  Theatre  when  it  was 
opened  as  a  German  house  in  1879,  and  called  The  Thalia. 
Here  Herr  Possard  played  Richard  on  January  7  and  March 
7,  1888. 

Here,  as  in  England,  apt  imitators  saw  a  ready  field,  and  we 
find  James  H.  Hackett  giving  imitations  of  Kean's  Richard 
and  T.  McCutcheon  of  J.  B.  Booth's  in  "The  Man  About 

speare's  heroes,  as  the  bard  himself  would  rejoice  they  should  be?  Why 
not  allow  the  wand  of  Ducrow  (the  noted  equestrian),  to  aid  the  representa- 
tion of  his  dramas,  as  well  as  the  pencil  of  Stanfield  ?  '  Saddle  White 
Surrey '  in  good  earnest,  and,  as  from  The  Surrey  you  once  banished  these 
animals,  and  have  taken  them  up  at  Drury  Lane,  think  of  doing  them 
justice.  .  .  .  Instead  of  niggardly  furnishing  Richard  and  Richmond  with 
armies  that  do  not  muster  the  force  of  a  Serjeant's  guard,  give  them  an 
efficient  force  of  horse  and  foot.  .  .  .  Richard  should  march  to  the  field 
in  the  full  panoply  of  all  your  cavalry,  and  not  trudge  like  a  poor  pedlar, 
whom  no  one  would  dream  of  '  interrupting  in  his  expedition.'  He  might 
impressively  dismount  in  compliment  to  the  ladies ;  and  when  in  the  field 
he  cries,  '  My  kingdom  for  a  horse ! '  the  audience  might  fairly  deem  such 
a  price  only  a  fair  offer  for  the  recovery  of  so  noble  an  animal."  Quoted 
by  Frost,  Circus  Life,  pages  81-2. 

67  The  doctor  was  on  the  stage  in  costume,  while  the  parts  of  Lady  Anne, 
Richmond,  and  others  were  read  from  behind  screens,  and  Richard  alone 
"  roared  and  bellowed."  T.  A.  Brown,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  Ill,  page  87. 


158 

Town."  Nor  could  this  play  escape  the  national  penchant  for 
caricature.  In  1842  "  Richard  Number  Three,"  a  musical 
burlesque,  appeared  at  Mitchell's  Olympic.  Chanfrau,  noted 
for  his  imitations,  especially  of  Forrest,  appeared  in  "  Richard 
III  in  Dutch  "  in  1869,  a  comic  piece  in  which  the  actor  Glenn 
had  figured  at  The  Bowery  four  years  before.  This  seem- 
ingly favorite  burlesque  found  its  way  to  the  Theatre  Comique 
in  the  same  year,  where  it  was  acted  by  Robert  McWade.  A 
travesty  of  "  Richard  the  Third,"  called  "  Bad  Dickey,"68  was 
a  feature  at  Tammany  Theatre,  and  was  repeated  at  Union 
Square.  As  late  as  1890,  D.  L.  Morris,  the  German  comedian, 
performed  in  a  burlesque  of  "  Richard  the  Third  "  at  Koster 
and  Bial's.69 

These  peculiar  representations  are  a  comment  upon  the  atti- 
tude toward  the  play  and  an  indication  of  the  theatrical  taste 
of  the  time.  They  were  not  confined  to  the  second-class 
theatres,  where  such  entertainments  are  to  be  expected,  but 
took  place  even  in  the  venerable  Park  Theatre,  and  in  The 
Bowery,  which  in  its  early  days  was  one  of  the  leading  houses 
in  New  York.  They  furnish  significant  evidence  of  the  popu- 
larity of  the  tragedy,  the  extreme  familiarity  of  the  audiences 
with  it,  and  illustrate  the  opportunity  in  the  play  for  striking 
and  extraordinary  situations,  which  so  easily  pass  over  into 
the  grotesque. 

68  The  dramatist  persona;  give  some  idea  of  its  character,  thus :  Richard, 
Henry  King,  Bucky  Gammon,  Richmud,  Stand  and  Lie,  Catspaw,  Rarcliffe, 
Lieut.  Jenkins,  Gnawfork,  Oxhead,  Tarheel,  Cuffy,  Sally  Ann,  Mrs.  Mc- 
Kween,  Dutch  Bess  of  New  York.  T.  A.  Brown,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  page  273. 
Fanny  Herring  played  the  comic  Richard. 

89 "  Legitimate  burlesque,"  according  to  Mr.  Hutton  in  Curiosities  of  the 
American  Stage,  began  in  United  States  with  the  production  of  John 
Poole's  celebrated  travesty  of  Hamlet,  one  of  the  earliest  of  its  kind  by 
George  Holland  on  March  22,  1828.  This  led  managers  to  importing,  and 
our  native  authors  to  writing  travesties  upon  everything  in  the  standard 
drama.  So  we  had  burlesques  of  Anthony  and  Cleopatra,  Douglas,  Macbeth, 
Othello,  Romeo  and  Juliet,  Manfred,  The  Tempest,  Richard  the  Third,  and 
many  others.  These  were  at  the  height  of  popularity  between  1839  and 
1859.  Wm.  Mitchell  was  the  leading  man  in  these  burlesques,  and  Richard 
Number  Three  was  one  of  his  famous  parts.  Later  John  Brougham  was  a 
leading  American  burlesque  actor. 


159 

With  the  appearance  of  Edwin  Booth  a  new  era  began  in 
the  history  of  this  play  in  America,  for  our  greatest  actor  gave 
the  newer  conception  of  the  character  of  Richard,  consonant 
with  the  later  critical  study  of  Shakespeare,  and  was  the  first 
to  make  a  successful  restoration  of  the  original  text  to  our 
stage.  Booth's  earliest  appearance  had  been  in  this  play,  when 
in  1847  ne  made  his  debut  as  Tressel  to  his  father's  Richard, 
as  did  all  the  sons  of  J.  B.  Booth  in  succession.70  His  first 
appearance  in  New  York  took  place  at  Burton's  Theatre,  in 
this  play,  on  May  4,  1857,  after  his  triumphs  in  the  West, 
where  his  first  substantial  success  had  been  gained  in  this  part 
at  San  Francisco  in  i852.71 

Edwin  Booth's  Richard  has  always  been  highly  praised.  It 
was  less  ferocious,  less  brutal  than  his  father's,  more  subtle, 
and  illustrated  the  character  not  only  by  throwing  the  great 
moments  of  the  play  into  strong  relief,  but  also  by  a  consistent 
illumination  of  the  calmer  scenes.  As  his  father's  method 
resembled  Kean's,  and  both  were  modelled  on  Cooke's,  so  in 
his  earlier  interpretations  he  followed  their  lead  in  such  terrific 
parts  as  Richard,  Sir  Giles  Overreach,  Pescara,  and  others. 
As  he  grew  older  he  discarded  most  of  these,  though  keeping 
Richard  the  Third,  but  to  that  character  giving  the  finer, 
philosophic  cast  which  distinguished  his  Hamlet  and  Richelieu. 
So  his  king  was  not  a  tyrannical  ruffian,  but  a  wily,  cunning, 
consummate  Plantagenet.  Here  in  America  we  see,  there- 
fore, the  same  transition  from  the  older  Kean  tradition,  as  it 
had  been  somewhat  brutalized  by  Booth  and  Forrest,  to  that 
subtler  conception  of  Irving.  He  dressed  carefully  for  the 
part,  but  his  "  make  up  "  included  "  no  distortion  of  limp  or 
hump."  He  is  said  to  have  based  his  idea  of  the  personal 
appearance  of  Richard  upon  the  portrait  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  and  to  have  been  influenced  in  his  conception  of  the 
character  by  Lord  Lytton's  presentation  of  Richard  in  "  The 

70  The  tradition  of  the  Booth  family  in  America  is  comparable  to  that  of 
the  Kembles  in  England. 

11  His  life  in  the  West  had  been  filled  with  strange  adventures,  not  least 
among  them  being  his  performance  of  Richard  the  Third  before  King 
Kamehameha  IV,  when  in  the  Sandwich  Islands. 


160 

Last  of  the  Barons."  The  stage  business  was  always  care- 
fully arranged,  with  the  utmost  precision,  even  to  the  charac- 
teristic toying  with  the  ring  upon  his  finger,  or  the  sheathing 
and  unsheathing  of  his  dagger.  In  Booth's  interpretation  the 
emphasis  is  not  upon  the  historical  sources,  but  upon  the  poetic 
conception  as  given  by  Shakespeare.72  The  return  to  history 
had  begun  with  Kemble ;  it  is  only  the  later  nineteenth  century 
actors  that  conceived  the  idea  of  going  to  the  original  author 
_for  their  inspiration  for  the  part. 

Before  considering  Booth's  restoration  of  the  original  form 
of  the  play,  a  word  must  be  said  about  a  similar  attempt  which 
preceded  it.  In  1871  the  managers  of  Niblo's  Garden  adver- 
tised "  a  grand  Shakespearian  revival,  in  the  performance  of 
the  tragedy  of  Richard  III,  with  an  ensemble  of  cast,  scenery 
and  accessories  such  as  has  never  been  attempted  in  this  coun- 
try." They  announced  that  "  for  months  preparations  have 
been  making  in  Europe,  and  are  now  being  completed  here, 
for  the  production  of  this  great  historical  play,  on  a  scale 
worthy  its  immortal  fame,"  in  order  to  make  this  "  not  only 
a  great  dramatic  success,  but  an  incident  marking  an  epoch  in 
the  history  of  the  American  stage."  In  regard  to  the  text, 
although  confessing  that  "  some  important  modifications  and 
certain  excisions  "  of  the  original  had  been  made,  they  averred 
that  they  had  entirely  disregarded  the  Gibber  version.  T.  A. 
Brown,  evidently  from  extra-information,  says  that  the  text 
was  "  reconstructed  "  by  Charles  A.  Calvert,™  that  disciple  of 
Phelps,  who  for  so  many  years  carried  on  in  Manchester  a 
work  similar  to  that  of  Sadler's  Wells.  The  music  was  "  in 
the  main  founded  on  Old  English  melodies  popular  at  the 
time."  The  chief  actor,  James  Bennet,  brought  from  England 
for  the  occasion,  was  to  appear  on  horseback,  and  all  was  to 
be  the  most  elaborate  and  the  most  correct  ever  seen  in  Amer- 
ica.7* But  in  spite  of  the  enthusiasm  of  the  advertiser,  and 

71  For  a  discussion  of  Edwin  Booth's  acting,  see  Shadows  of  the  Stage 
and  The  Life  and  Art  of  Edwin  Booth,  both  by  Mr.  William  Winter. 

13  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  page  210. 

74  These  details  were  given  in  a  small  pamphlet,  evidently  patterned  after 
The  Fly-Leaf  which  used  to  accompany  Charles  Kean's  elaborate  produc- 


161 

the  supreme  efforts  of  the  managers,  the  revival  did  not  attract. 
Bennet  was  distinctly  weak,  and  the  text  was  only  partly  suc- 
cessful. At  the  end  of  a  week,  Neil  Warner  was  put  in  Ben- 
net's  place,  the  Gibber  text  replaced  the  one  that  had  been  so 
carefully  prepared,  with  the  addition,  however,  of  the  dream 
and  murder  of  Clarence  which  had  made  a  "  hit  " ;  and  the  play 
in  this  form  ran  for  three  weeks.  Even  Count  Joannes,  who 
was  the  attraction  for  the  last  night  of  the  four  weeks'  run, 
scored  a  success!  The  history  of  this  attempt  resembles  that 
of  similar  attempts  in  England ;  Phelps  returned  to  the  Cibber 
form,  and  Macready's  adaptation  was  played  but  one  night. 
This  revival  seems  to  have  been  undertaken  primarily  for  the 
sake  of  the  novelty  gained  by  extraordinary  setting,  and  by  the 
use  of  the  original  text  as  something  hitherto  unattempted 
here,  rather  than  for  the  sake  of  making  a  serious  appeal  for 
the  rehabilitation  of  the  Shakespearian  form,  in  and  for  itself. 

At  this  time  Booth  was  still  using  the  Cibber  form  of  the 
play,  and  continued  to  do  so  until  1878,  when  as  the  opening 
performance  of  the  season  at  his  own  theatre,75  he  introduced 
his  adaptation  of  the  original.  It  ran  successfully  for  two 
weeks,  marking  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  play  in  America 
as  did  Irving's  revival  of  "  Richard  the  Third  "  the  year  before 
at  The  Lyceum,  London. 

The  editor  of  the  Edwin  Booth  version  of  "  Richard  the 
Third,"  Mr.  William  Winter,  summarizes  the  changes  made 
by  the  adaptor  thus : 

"  Changes  of  the  original  have  been  made,  in  both  the  arrangement  of 
the  scenes  and  the  distribution  of  the  text.  Portions  of  the  original  have 
been  omitted.  The  portions  retained,  however,  have  been  taken  from  the 
original,  and  from  no  other  source.  The  text  has  been  but  slightly  altered, 
and  that  in  only  a  few  places.  No  new  material  has  been  introduced." 

To  see  how  it  differs  from  other  adaptations,  we  may  note 
briefly  the  changes  in  successive  acts  and  scenes. 

tions.  In  this  a  long  list  of  authorities  was  given,  among  them  some  Ameri- 
can Shakespearian  scholars,  as  R.  G.  White  and  others. 

75  Booth's  Theatre  was  situated  on  the  southeast  corner  of  Sixth  Avenue 
and   Twenty-third    Street.       It   burned    down    in    1883.       To    preserve   the 
memory  of  this  noted  play-house,  a  bust  of  Shakespeare  has  been  placed 
in  the  front  of  the  building  now  occupying  the  site. 
12 


162 

Act  I,  Scene  i. — The  Hastings  episode  is  cut  out;  otherwise 
the  scene  is  merely  shortened,  and  concludes  with  the  wooing 
of  Anne. 

Scene  2. — Richard's  soliloquy.     Located  in  "  another  street." 

Scene  5. — Scene  of  the  quarreling  nobles,  t.  e.,  the  same  as 
in  Shakespeare.  The  first  act  ends  at  this  point. 

Act  II. — The  dream  and  murder  of  Clarence. 

Act  III,  Scene  I. — This  opens  with  the  reconciliation  of  the 
nobles  and  the  Queen  about  the  sick-bed  of  the  King,  gives 
a  few  lines  of  the  lamenting  scene,  and  closes  with  Richard's 
preparation  for  testing  the  attitude  of  Hastings.  The  epic 
scenes  in  Shakespeare,  Act  II,  Scenes  3  and  4,  and  Act  III, 
Scene  I,  the  entry  of  the  young  king  into  London,  are  omitted. 

Scenes  2  and  3. — The  testing  of  Hastings  by  Catesby,  and 
his  indictment  and  condemnation  by  Richard,  closing  with  the 
picture  of  the  consternation  in  the  Council  Room  after  Rich- 
ard's outburst.  The  intervening  scenes  are  omitted. 

Act  IV. — The  scene  at  Baynard  Castle,  considerably  short- 
ened. 

Act.  V. — This  corresponds  in  general  with  Act  IV  in  the 
Shakespearian  text,  though  with  much  shortening,  and  the 
omission  of  the  scene  of  the  women  lamenting  before  the 
Tower,  and  the  short  scene  at  Lord  Derby's  house. 

Act  VI. — Shakespeare's  Act  V  becomes  the  sixth  act  in 
Booth's  arrangement,  and  coincides  practically  with  it.  The 
first  scene  is  omitted,  and  there  is  considerable  rearrangement 
of  the  later  scenes  and  lines.  The  play  ends  with  the  fall  of 
Richard.70 

Comparing  this  with  Irving's  adaptation  of  practically  the 
same  date,  it  is  seen  that  the  American  adaptor  has  taken 
greater  liberties  with  the  text.  Irving's  changes  consisted  in 
omitting  certain  scenes,  for  the  most  part  epic  in  character,  in 
shortening  such  parts  as  those  of  Queen  Margaret  and  Queen 
Elizabeth,  and  in  eliminating  Richmond's  part  in  the  ghost 
scene,  as  in  the  Cibber  version.  None  of  the  characters  are 
omitted  except  the  very  unimportant  ones  of  Clarence's  chil- 

7a  Shakespeare's  Tragedy  of  King  Richard  III,  As  Presented  by  Edwin 
Booth.  Edited  by  William  Winter.  New  York,  1878. 


163 

dren.  Booth,  on  the  other  hand,  has  cut  out  thirteen  of  the 
thirty-seven  characters,  among  these  the  princes,  the  latter  a 
most  radical  change  both  from  Shakespeare  and  from  the 
version  to  which  the  public  was  most  accustomed;  he  has 
made  a  materially  different  division  of  acts  and  scenes  to  bring 
into  prominence  the  episodes  connected  with  Clarence  and 
Hastings,  scenes  which  in  former  restorations  had  proved  the 
most  successful  ones;  he  has  preserved  almost  in  its  entirety 
the  archaic  figure  of  Queen  Margaret,  and  the  appearance  of 
the  ghosts  both  to  Richard  and  Richmond.77  While  both  have 
cut  down  the  play  to  nearly  half  its  length,  Booth  omits  the 
greater  number  of  lines,78  and  takes  more  liberty  in  shifting 
and  rearranging.  Booth's  adaptation  was  successful,  but  as 
in  the  case  of  Irving's,  was  not  generally  adopted.79  It  seems 
to  be  only  a  master  interpretation  such  as  Irving  or  Booth 
gave,  that  has  been  able  to  make  the  poetry  of  Shakespeare  pre- 
ferred on  the  stage  to  the  theatrical  possibilities  of  the  Gibber 
version. 

The  staging  of  this  play  marked  a  distinct  advance,  but 
rather  in  permanent  theatrical  appliances  than  in  any  unusual 
gorgeousness  of  setting  such  as  had  characterized  the  "  restora- 
tion "  at  Niblo's  Garden.  According  to  a  writer  of  1870,  who 
describes  Booth's  Theatre,  this  was  the  first  house  in  America 
to  use  the  modern  arrangement  of  side  wings  placed  obliquely 
to  the  spectator.80  This  gives  the  illusion  of  distance  and  great 
spaciousness,  as  the  older  employment  of  flat  wings  could  not, 
necessary  for  the  best  effects  in  such  a  play  as  "  Richard  the 

77  Such  an  arrangement,  a  simple  matter  on  the  Elizabethan  stage,  as  we 
have  seen,  here  brings  into  requisition  the  most  elaborate  contrivances  of 
scenery    and    lighting.       The    stage    directions    read :    "  After    a    few   vivid 
flashes  of  light  the  scene  becomes  illuminated  and  shows  the  ghosts  and 
the  distant  tents  of  Richmond." 

78  Irving  omits   1435   lines,   Booth   1558. 

79  Booth   himself    seems    to    have    felt   little    satisfaction    in    his    success, 
according  to  the  report  which   Professor  Brander  Matthews,  of  Columbia 
University,  gives  of  a  conversation  with  him.     He  told  Professor  Matthews 
that  he   had  made   a  mistake  in  taking  up   Shakespeare   in  preference   to 
Gibber  as  the  latter  was  a  better  acting  play. 

80  Booth's  Theatre;  Behind  the  Scenes.      Appleton's  Journal,   1870. 


164 

Third."  In  costuming,  properties,  and  setting,  Booth's  Theatre 
stood  for  perfection,  and  was  the  direct  forerunner  of  the  best 
equipped  New  York  theatres  of  to-day.  With  the  performance 
of  this  version  during  Booth's  life-time  we  close  the  history 
of  the  play  in  America. 

Little  need  be  said  of  Booth's  contemporaries  •  in  this  part. 
His  brother,  Wilkes  Booth,  of  lamentable  fame,  played  Richard 
with  all  the  ferocity  and  verve  of  his  father.81  A  description 
of  his  performance  shows  perhaps  the  most  extreme  develop- 
ment of  the  older  conception  among  the  younger  actors.  It 
is  given  by  T.  A.  Brown,  in  his  "  History  of  the  New  York 
Stage,"  thus : 

"As  Richard  he  was  different  from  all  other  tragedians.  He  imitated 
no  one,  but  struck  out  into  a  path  of  his  own,  introducing  points  which 
older  actors  would  not  dare  to  attempt.  In  the  last  act  he  was  truly 
original,  particularly  where  the  battle  commences.  With  most  tragedians 
it  is  the  custom  to  rush  on  the  stage,  while  the  fight  is  going  on,  looking  as 
if  dressed  for  court.  Wilkes  Booth  made  a  terrible  feature  of  this  part 
of  the  performance.  He  would  dart  across  the  stage  as  if  he  '  meant 
business ' ;  then  again  he  would  appear  '  seeking  for  Richmond  in  the 
throat  of  death.'  His  face  was  covered  with  blood  from  wounds  supposed 
to  have  been  received  in  slaying  those  five  other  Richmonds  he  refers  to; 
his  beaver  was  lost  in  the  fray,  his  hair  flying  belter  skelter,  his  clothes 
all  torn,  and  he  panted  and  fumed  like  a  prize  fighter.  In  this  character 
he  was  more  terribly  real  than  any  other  actor  I  ever  saw."" 

The  Wallacks,  Lawrence  Barrett,  John  McCullough,  J.  W. 
Keene,  all  rose  to  respectable  eminence  in  the  part,  but  noth- 
ing of  note  marks  their  performances.  The  Gibber  text  was 
used  by  these  actors,  and  the  traditional  lines  in  interpretation 
seem  to  have  been  followed.  Not  until  Richard  Mansfield 
appeared,  did  we  have  a  fresh  conception,  or  a  new  version, 
this  time  a  compromise  between  Shakespeare  and  Gibber.88 

The  history  of  "  Richard  the  Third  "  in  America,  aside  from 
the  excesses  and  incongruities  which  have  at  times  marked  its 

81 A  story  similar  to  that  told  of  Count  Joannes  and  the  elder  Booth, 
is  recounted  of  Wilkes  Booth  when  he  was  acting  Richard  with  Tilton,  and 
became  so  infuriated  that  he  drove  him  over  the  footlights. 

82  Vol.  I,  page  510. 

83  This  is  described  in  Mr.  Winter's  Shadows  of  the  Stage,  in  the  chapter 
on  Richard  Mansfield  as  Richard  the  Third. 


165 

production,  is  not  without  a  sober  interest.  The  frequency  of 
its  telling  situations,  the  patent  quality  of  its  emotions,  the  pos- 
sibility of  adequate  representation  with  small  means,  which 
adapted  it  to  the  crudest  conditions  and  made  it  a  favorite  with 
strolling  companies  in  England,  assured  its  success  in  the  barn- 
like  theatres  and  with  the  provincial  audiences  of  early 
America.  So  we  find  it  first  among  tragic  representations 
here,  and  later,  as  in  England,  holding  a  prominent  place 
throughout  the  history  of  our  stage.  It  is  significant  that, 
with  the  appearance  of  great  American  actors,  we  have  dis- 
tinct innovations;  Forrest  introduced  an  individual  concep- 
tion counter  to  that  holding  the  stage  at  the  time  but  later 
realized  by  a  great  actor ;  Booth  an  adaptation  and  successful 
restoration  of  the  Shakespearian  text.  In  staging  and  general 
conception  of  the  part,  America  has  throughout  reflected  the 
conditions  in  England,  as  it  has  constantly  induced  the  actors 
from  that  country  to  perform  here.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
America  has  sent  Forrest  and  Booth  to  England,  and  both 
were  welcomed  as  of  the  great  ones.  The  present  situation  in 
America  is  as  it  is  in  England  in  regard  to  this  play;  the 
struggle  for  the  "  Richard  the  Third  "  of  Shakespeare  is  still 
"  on/'  and  until  others  as  great  as  Booth  appear  to  confirm 
his  work,  it  seems  likely  to  continue. 


VII 

CONCLUSION 

At  the  end  of  the  long  history  of  this  play,  a  few  words 
should  be  said  in  conclusion.  We  have  noted  the  character  of 
Shakespeare's  "  Richard  the  Third  "  as  showing  within  it  the 
marks  of  the  three  great  influences  of  the  early  Elizabethan 
period,  the  chronicle,  the  tragedy  of  Marlowe,  and  the  revenge 
play  of  Kyd;  we  have  found  in  its  presentation  traces  of  the 
popular  drama  as  well  as  the  use  of  the  typical  devices  of  the 
Elizabethan  stage,  although  it  seems  to  have  been  markedly 
free  from  such  elaborate  effects  as  are  suggested  by  the  direc- 
tions in  many  of  the  plays  of  the  period;  we  have  seen  that 
during  the  Restoration  another  play  on  the  subject,  showing  all 
the  characteristics  of  the  heroic  tragedy  and  the  changed  con- 
ditions of  staging,  took  its  place,  and  influenced  the  later  ap- 
pearance of  Shakespeare's  play.  With  the  version  of  "  Richard 
the  Third  "  by  Colley  Gibber,  we  find  it  entering  upon  its  mod- 
ern era,  and  see  in  its  revision  an  effort  to  replace  the  archaic 
elements  of  the  original  by  the  correspondingly  popular  devices 
of  the  eighteenth  century  stage.  We  have  shown  that  for 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  this  play  held  the  stage  undisputed,, 
long  after  the  other  dramas  of  Shakespeare  had  been  finally 
"  restored,"  and  that  the  last  thirty  years  of  its  history  have 
been  marked  by  a  struggle  between  the  original  and  the  re- 
vision, a  struggle  which  is  not  yet  at  an  end. 

But  what  is  most  striking  in  the  history  of  this  play  is  the 
evidence  which  it  gives  of  the  perennial  interest  in  the  villain- 
type,  Shakespeare's  "  Richard  the  Third  "  was  preceded  by 
a  line  of  villain  plays,  which  helped  to  fix  the  character,  and 
to  connect  with  it  certain  attributes  which  it  has  always  re- 
tained. In  "  Cambyses,"  as  well  as  in  "  Richardus  Tertius  " 
and  "  The  True  Tragedy,"  we  find  evidences  of  a  growing 
conception  of  the  villain,  which  affected  the  later  productions. 

166 


167 


With  the  appearance  of  Marlowe's  Machiavelian  heroes,  and 
of  Kyd's  vengeful  types,  new  elements  were  added.  That 
Richard  was  an  historical  personage  had  little  effect  upon  the 
development  of  this  hero,  for  he  had  already  been  converted 
into  a  saga  figure,  and  it  was  to  this  that  Shakespeare  turned. 
The  conception  of  Richard,  while  generally  permanent,  has 
suffered  some  change  as  it  has  been  interpreted  to  the  public 
since  the  Elizabethan  age.  We  have  seen  that,  as  the  ideas  of 
proper  tragic  form  and  subject  have  changed,  so  this  character 
has  illustrated  new  modes  of  thought,  and  differing  emotional 
reactions  upon  the  central  idea  of  the  play.  The  Elizabethan 
Richard  shows  far  more  of  the  medieval  type  of  the  infallible, 
tyrannical  despot,  with  a  greater  element  of  bombast  and  ora- 
torical splutter  than  do  the  later  Richards.  In  the  late  seven- 
teenth century,  we  find  the  hero  torn  between  love  and  ambi- 
tion, an  impossible  and  uninteresting  conception  to  the  earlier 
audience,  who  wished  its  villains  of  purer  dye.  Again,  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  Richard  becomes  a  quieter  character,  and 
although  still  oratorical,  is  less  bombastic  in  the  hands  of  the 
better  actors,  the  older  interpretation  persisting,  however,  with 
the  second-rate  performers.  There  is  here  no  less  brutality, 
nor  is  there  less  action,  but  it  is  all  of  a  more  sardonic  cast. 
The  nineteenth  century  we  have  seen  developing  the  subtler 
side  of  Richard's  villainy,  dwelling  upon  motives,  recalling  his 
kingly  characteristics,  and  producing  a  hero  of  decidedly  more 
thoughtful  nature.  But  through  all  these  changes,  and  indeed 
because  of  its  adaptability  to  them,  the  play,  ever  since  the 
days  when  Queen  Elizabeth  "  was  pleased  at  seeing  Henry  VII 
in  a  favorable  light,"  has  been  unflaggingly  attractive,  and  the 
character  of  Richard  has  ever  elicited  unfailing  interest.  It  is 
true  indeed,  that  Richard  the  Third  has  not  been  the  favorite 
role  of  any  great  actor  since  the  time  of  J.  B.  Booth,  but  that 
it  is  not  performed  so  frequently  as  in  the  days  of  Garrick  and 
Kean,  is  to  be  explained  by  the  same  conditions  which  cause 
the  other  plays  of  Shakespeare  to  appear  only  occasionally  on 
the  stage  today. 

This  interest  of  the  audience  in  the  villain  play,  in  the  pre- 
sentation of  the  unavoidable  balking  by  fate  of  man's  assump- 


168 

tion  of  unlimited  power,  in  the  tremendous  dramatic  irony  of 
the  situations,  was  reinforced  from  the  beginning  by  the  favor 
of  the  actors  for  a  play  that  gave  an  unprecedented  oppor- 
tunity for  the  "  star."  The  part  has  always  been  considered  of 
extreme  difficulty,  making  enormous  demands  upon  the  actor, 
greater  than  those  of  Hamlet,  lago,  or  Lear,  but  at  the  same 
time,  from  the  "  variegated  character "  of  Richard,  offering 
great  possibilities.  Its  concentration  of  interest  upon  the  hero, 
while  lessening  the  advantage  of  dramatic  contrast,  has  never- 
theless made  it  a  favorite  play  with  actors  in  all  ages.  While  it 
has  lent  itself  thus,  to  one  of  the  worst  abuses  of  acting  in  the 
over-emphasis  of  the  chief  character,  it  has  at  the  same  time 
been  the  touchstone  for  breadth,  subtlety  of  conception  of 
character,  and  ingenuity  in  "  business,"  from  Burbage  to  Irv- 
ing. It  has,  therefore,  been  a  prominent  role  with  every  well- 
known  actor  except  Betterton  (and  he  performed  the  part  of 
Richard  in  "The  English  Princess"),  from  the  time  of  its 
original  appearance  to  the  present  day. 

Perhaps  for  that  reason  the  history  of  this  play  shows 
plainly  the  succession  of  schools  of  acting.  From  time  to 
time,  an  actor  has  been  hailed  as  giving  a  new  interpre- 
tation of  the  part,  or  as  showing  a  more  natural  method.  So 
the  older  has  been  repeatedly  outgrown,  as  it  hardened  into 
convention  or  departed  from  the  fresher  perception.  Bur- 
bage was  of  a  new  school;  later  Garrick  reformed  the  older 
method  as  it  had  been  preserved  in  Betterton;  Kean  reacted 
against  the  formality  of  Kemble ;  and  he  was  in  turn  regarded 
as  artificial  by  Irving  and  Booth.  We  find  a  repetition  of  the 
same  problem  from  generation  to  generation.  Nor  has  the 
ultimate,  natural  conception  been  reached  by  an  Irving  or  a 
Booth,  according  to  present  critics,  for  the  language  used  in  a 
recent  review  of  the  acting  of  Mr.  William  Mollison  of 
London  sounds  much  like  that  of  reviewers  in  the  heyday  of  the 
older  "  stars."  The  writer  says  of  his  performance  of  Richard, 
"  not  only  is  it  entirely  new  alike  in  fact  and  spirit,  but  it  does 
an  enormous  deal  toward  making  that  sinister  personage  a 
really  feasible,  appealing  character  for  a  modern  audience." 
He  describes  the  actor's  idea  of  Richard  as  "  a  preferably 


169 

understandable  man  of  action,  a  truculent,  brisk,  hustling,  ag- 
gressive fellow,  hard  as  nails,  of  enormous  vigor  and  per- 
sonality, and  a  grim,  rough  humor."  He  speaks  of  the  woo- 
ing of  Anne  and  the  parleying  with  Margaret  as  displaying  a 
Richard  "  delightfully  humorous,  gay,  insolent,  aggressive,  full 
of  the  right  '  alacrity  of  spirit  and  cheer  of  mind.' "  And 
as  has  been  said  of  great  actors  before  him,  we  find  that 
"  the  way  Mr.  Mollison  thundered  out  the  '  White-livered 
runagate,  what  doth  he  there  ? '  made  the  whole  audience  hold 
its  breath." 

That  "Richard  the  Third"  has  persisted  upon  the  stage 
in  spite  of  all  the  changes  in  theatrical  taste,  and  through  re- 
vision into  what  many  have  considered  a  degraded  form,  is  an 
evidence  of  its  dramatic  excellence,  which  under  all  conditions 
seems  to  have  been  unimpaired.  The  figure  of  a  great,  master- 
ful character,  untroubled  by  scruple,  unappalled  by  conscience, 
of  supreme  intellectual  force,  working  out  his  ends,  regarding 
his  fellow-creatures  as  mere  puppets  of  his  will,  and  at  last, 
overtaken  by  the  consequences  of  his  crimes,  dying  valiantly 
and  desperately,  has  persisted  in  Gibber's  version  and  in  the 
revisions  of  the  Gibber  text,  as  it  was  in  Shakespeare.  It  is  to 
this  large  conception  that  audiences  and  actors  have  constantly 
turned.  It  is  a  play  of  startling  effects,  of  patent  development 
of  character,  of  inevitable  situations.  While  it  is  still  marked 
by  the  peculiarities  of  its  Elizabethan  origin  in  the  figure  of 
Margaret,  in  the  very  presence  of  the  Marlowean  type  of  hero, 
in  the  staging,  yet  the  appeal  through  the  universal  note  of  the 
motives,  and  the  reality  of  the  language,  especially  in  the 
speeches  of  Richard,  have  assured  its  everlasting  popularity. 

As  we  have  seen,  "  Richard  the  Third  "  contains  archaic 
elements  which  are  not  found  in  any  other  play  which  has  sur- 
vived on  the  stage,  and  which  have  been  an  effectual  bar  to  its 
"  restoration."  Thus,  it  has  been  possible  to  "  restore  "  the 
Shakespearian  form  of  "  Macbeth  "  or  "  King  Lear  "  without 
the  violence  to  modern  stage  conventions  that  would  have  been 
felt  in  the  case  of  the  original  form  of  "  Richard  the  Third." 
On  the  other  hand,  since  it  has  been  found  capable  of  adapta- 
tion to  modern  methods,  it  is  the  only  chronicle  play  (using 


170 

the  term  in  its  narrower  significance),  that  holds  the  stage 
today.  Besides,  "  Richard  the  Third,"  although  it  re-appeared 
during  the  vogue  of  classical  canons  in  tragedy,  escaped  with 
little  mutilation,  and  was  never  made  into  a  "  regular  "  play. 
Nor  was  it  violated  by  such  inappropriate  transformations  as 
disfigured  some  of  the  other  Shakespearian  plays ;  as  "  Mac- 
beth "  for  instance,  by  the  introduction  of  music  and  dancing 
and  sirens  in  the  place  of  the  witches ;  or  "  The  Tempest " 
when  converted  into  opera ;  nor  did  it  undergo  the  conversion 
of  tragedy  into  comedy,  as  in  the  case  of  Tate's  "  Lear," 
and  Howard's  "  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  or  suffer  the  introduction 
of  a  distinctly  romantic  element,  as  in  Crowne's  "  Henry  the 
Sixth."  The  greatest  violence  to  structure  consists  in  its  fusion 
with  'a  part  of  "  Henry  the  Sixth,"  but  this  was  done  by  no 
means  after  the  extreme  fashion  of  D'Avenant's  "  Law  against 
Lovers,"  in  which  "  Measure  for  Measure  "  and  "  Much  Ado  " 
are  forced  to  come  into  line.  Indeed,  it  is  generally  conceded 
that  Colley  Gibber,  while  ruthlessly  destroying  the  poetry  of 
the  play,  did  make  it  "  fitter  for  the  stage,"  as  he  set  out  to  do, 
• :.-  ^\jy  concentrating,  modernizing,  and  shortening. 

The  career  of  this  play,  as  we  have  seen,  has  been  a  most 
romantic  one.  Presented  at  first  by  the  best  company  of 
London,  and  possibly  at  Court,  it  became  the  favorite  of 
strolling  comedians,  inaugurated  the  Shakespearian  drama  in 
America  in  primitive  colonial  structures,  was  played  for  Chero- 
kee Indians,  before  the  Hawaiian  king,  in  German-American 
theatres,  under  the  guise  of  "  moral  lectures,"  as  travesty, 
burlesque,  circus  attraction,  by  children's  and  by  women's 
companies.  It  has  been  depended  upon  for  benefits,  has  always 
been  a  favorite  as  a  first  performance ;  it  has  figured  in  some 
of  the  greatest  theatrical  triumphs,  and  some  of  the  most  inter- 
3^'  esting  events  of  stage  history  have  centered  about  it.  It  has 
been  the  object  of  ambition  for  every  aspirant  to  histrionic 
fame,  and  has  probably  launched  a  greater  number  of  actors 
upon  their  careers  than  any  other  play. 

Looked  at  from  a  larger  point  of  view,  this  play  is  of  inter- 
est, not  only  from  the  side  of  popular  taste,  but  from  the  side 
of  general  social  devolopment.  Its  humor  bespeaks  an  age  of 


171 

cruder  sensibilities,  as  is  seen  in  the  evident  delight  in  de- 
formity in  the  original  presentation.  The  ignoring  or  soften- 
ing of  Richard's  ugliness  in  later  interpretations  has  a  far- 
reaching  significance.  The  appreciation,  also,  of  the  com- 
plexity of  this  character  in  the  latest  portrayals  shows  an 
advance  in  the  conception  of  the  nature  of  evil,  when  com- 
pared with  the  unshaded  villainy  of  the  earlier  Richards. 

It  was  pointed  out  by  Schlegel  long  ago  and  has  been  often 
repeated,  that  the  dramas  of  Shakespeare  take  the  place  of  a 
national  epic  in  English  literature.  In  such  an  epic  Richard 
the  Third  gathers  about  him  the  racial  conception  of  what  is 
consummately  evil.  And  so  the  conception  of  Richard  has 
become  engrafted  within  the  ideals  of  our  dramatic  literature 
in  a  peculiar  manner,  as  a  persistent  habit  of  thought,  to  which 
we  are  constantly  attracted  by  its  long  line  of  associations  or 
by  the  tradition  of  its  perennial  appeal.  And,  as  about  the 
character  and  the  play  certain  ideals  of  the  villain  and  of  the 
tragic  have  clustered  from  the  earliest  days  of  English  drama, 
it  still  today  retains  a  real  significance  and  lends  itself  con- 
stantly to  newer  and  wider  application  and  adaptation. 


VIII 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Anonymous.     Elizabethan   Stage   Theories.     Littell's   Living 

Age,  Vol.  247  (1905). 

The  Dramatic  Censor;  or  Critical  Companion.  2  vols. 
London,  1770.  Essay  on  Richard  the  Third,  as 
Altered  from  Shakespeare  by  Cibber. 
The  Laureate ;  or  the  right  side  of  C.  C. ;  containing  ex- 
planations, amendments,  observations,  on  a  book, 
entitled :  "  An  Apology  for  the  life  .  .  .,"  etc.  Lon- 
don, 1740. 

The  Life  and  Times  of  that  Excellent  and  Renowned 
Actor,  Thomas  Betterton,  etc.     London,  1888. 

Albright,  Victor  E.  A  Typical  Shaksperian.  Stage:  The 
Outer-Inner  Stage.  New  York,  1908. 

American  Historical  Record,  March,  1872. 

Appleton's  Journal,  1870.  Booth's  Theatre;  Behind  the 
Scenes. 

Archer,     William.     William     Charles     Macready.     London, 

1890. 
The  Elizabethan  Stage.     Quarterly  Review,  April,  1908. 

Aston,  Anthony.  A  Brief  Supplement  to  Colley  Cibber, 
Esq.;  his  Lives  of  the  late  famous  Actors  and  Ac- 
tresses. Reprinted  in  Lowe's  edition  of  Cibber's 
Apology. 

Baker,  D.  E.,  Reed,  I.,  and  Jones,  S.  Biographia  Dramatica. 
A  Companion  to  the  Playhouse,  etc.  3  vols.  Lon- 
don, 1812. 

Baker,  G.  P.  The  Development  of  Shakespeare  as  a  Drama- 
tist. New  York,  1907. 

Baker,  H.   Barton.     History  of  the  London   Stage  and  its 

Famous  Players.     London,  1904. 
Our  Old  Actors.     2  vols.     London,  1878. 

172 


173 

Bankside   Shakespeare.     Edited  by  Appleton   Morgan.     The 

Shakespeare  Society  of  New  York,  1888-. 
Bernard,  Bayle.     Early  Days  of  the  American  Stage.     Tal- 

lis'  Dramatic  Magazine,  1850. 
Bernard,     John.     Retrospections     of     America,     1797-1811. 

New  York,  1887. 
Boaden,  James.     Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  John  Philip  Kemble, 

Esq.     Including  a  History  of  the   Stage,   from  the 

time  of  Garrick  to  the  present  period.     London,  1825. 
Booth,    Edwin.     Richard    the    Third.     The    Prompt    Book. 

Edited  by  William  Winter.     New  York,  1878. 
Brandl,  A.     Introduction  to  Schlegel-Tieck  Shakespeare. 
Brodmeier,  C.     Die  Shakespeare-Biihne  nach  den  alten  Biih- 

nenanweisungen.     Weimar,  1904. 
Brown,  T.  A.     A  History  of  the  New  York  Stage,  from  the 

First  Performances  in  1732  to  1901.     3  vols.     New 

York,  1903. 
Cambridge    Shakespeare.      Edited    by    Clark    and    Wright. 

Third  ed.,  1891. 

Chase,  L.  N.     The  English  Heroic  Play.     New  York,  1903. 
Churchill,    G.    B.     Richard   the   Third    up   to    Shakespeare. 

Berlin,  1900. 
Gibber,  Colley.     An  Apology  for  the  Life  of  Colley  Cibber 

by  Himself.     Edited  by  R.  W.  Lowe.     London,  1889. 

2  VOls. 

The  Dramatic  Works.     4  vols.     London,  1760. 

Clarke,  Asia  Booth.     The  Elder  and  Younger  Booth.     Bos- 
ton, 1882. 

Cole,  J.  W.     The  Life  and  Theatrical  Times  of  Charles  Kean, 
F.S.A.     2  vols.     London,  1859. 

Collier,   J.    P.     The    History   of   English    Dramatic   Poetry. 
Three  parts.     London,  1831. 

Corbin,    J.     Shakespeare    and    the    Plastic    Stage.     Atlantic 

Monthly,  March,  1906. 
The  Elizabethan  Hamlet.     New  York,  1895. 

Coryat,    Thomas.      Coryat's    Crudities.     3    vols.      London, 
1776. 


174 

Courthope,  W.  J.     A  History  of  English  Poetry.     4  vols. 

New  York,  1895. 
Cunliffe,  J.   W.     The  Influence  of   Seneca   on   Elizabethan 

Tragedy.     Manchester,  1893. 
Davies,    Thos.      Dramatic    Miscellanies.      3   vols.      London, 

1785;. 

Delius,  N.  Uber  das  Englische  Theatrewesen  zu  Shakspere's 
Zeit.  Bonn,  1853. 

Dohse,  R.  Colley  Gibber's  Biihnenbearbeitung  von  Shakes- 
peare's Richard  III.  Bonner  Beitrage  zur  Anglistik, 
Vol.  II.  1899. 

Doran.  "  Their  Majesties  Servants."  2  vols.  New  York, 
1880. 

Dowries,  J.  Roscius  Anglicanus,  or  an  Historical  Review  of 
the  Stage  from  1660  to  1706.  A  Fac-simile  Reprint 
of  the  Rare  Original  of  1708.  With  an  Historical 
Preface  by  Joseph  Knight.  London,  1886. 

Dunlap,  William.  A  History  of  the  American  Theatre. 
New  York,  1832. 

Edwin  Forrest  Edition  of  Shakespearian  Plays.  No.  5. 
Richard  III.  Correctly  marked  .  .  .  from  his  own 
prompt-book,  and  as  acted  by  him  at  Niblo's  Garden. 
New  York.  No  date. 

Eversley  Shakespeare.  Edited  by  C.  H.  Herford.  10  vols. 
1902. 

Fennell,  J.     Apology  for  His  Life.     Philadelphia,  1814. 

Fleay,  F.  G.     A  Biographical  Chronicle  of  the  English  Drama, 

I559-I642.     London,  1891.    2  vols. 
A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage,   1559-1642. 

1890. 
Life  of  Shakespeare.     1886. 

Fitzgerald,  P.  A  New  History  of  the  English  Stage  from 
the  Restoration  to  the  Liberty  of  the  Theatres,  in 
Connection  with  the  Patent  Houses.  2  vols.  Lon- 
don, 1882. 

The  Life  of  Garrick.    2  vols.     London,  1868. 
The  Kembles.    2  vols.    London,  1871. 


175 

Frost,  T.     Circus  Life  and  Circus  Celebrities.     London,  1875. 
The  Old  Showmen  and  the  Old  London  Fairs.     London, 

1874- 
Furness,  Horace  Howard,  Jr.     A  New  Variorum  Edition  of 

Shakespeare.     The  Tragedy  of  Richard  the  Third. 

Philadelphia,  1908. 
Genee,  R.  von.     Uber  die  schenischen  Formen  Shakespeare's 

in  ihrem  Verhaltniss  zur  Buhne  seiner  Zeit.     Shak. 

Jahrbuch,  Vol.  26. 
Genest,  J.     Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage  from  1660  to 

1830.     10  vols.     Bath,  1832. 

Gildersleeve,  V.  C.     Governmental  Regulation  of  the  Shakes- 
pearean Drama.     New  York,  1908. 

Gildon,  C.     The  Life  of  Mr.  Thomas  Betterton,  the  late  emi- 
nent Tragedian.     London,  1710. 
Gould,  T.  R.     The  Tragedian;  An  Essay  on  the  Histrionic 

Genius  of  Booth.    New  York,  1868. 
Greg,  W.  W.     Henslowe's  Diary.     London,   1904.     Part  I. 

Text. 
Griggs,   W.     Shakespeare   Quarto   Facsimiles.     Richard  the 

Third. 
Hale,  E.  E.,  Jr.     The  Influence  of  the  Theatrical  Conditions 

on  Shakespeare.     Modern  Philology,  Vol.  I  (1903). 
Halliwell-Phillipps,  J.  O.     Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Shakes- 
peare.    6th  ed.,  1886. 
Haslewood,  J.     The  Secret  History  of  the  Green  Room,  etc. 

2  vols.     London,  1793. 
Hazlitt,  Wm.     Characters  of  Shakespeare's  Plays.     Lectures 

on  the  Dramatic  Literature  of  the  Age  of  Elizabeth. 

London,  1848. 
Henry    Irving    Shakespeare.     Edited   by   Henry    Irving   and 

F.  A.  Marshall.     8  vols.     New  York,  1888-90. 
Hentzner,    P.      A    Journey    into    England,    in    the    Year 

MDXCVIII.     Edited  by  Horace  Walpole.     1757. 
Heywood,  Thos.     An  Apology  for  Actors.     Reprinted  from 

the   edition   of    1612    for   the   Shakespeare   Society. 

London,  1841. 


176 

Hodgkinson,  J.  A  Narrative  of  his  Connection  with  the  Old 
American  Company.  From  the  Fifth  of  September, 
1792,  to  the  Thirty- First  of  March,  1797.  New 
York,  1797. 

Hubbard,  F.  G.  Repetition  and  Parallelism  in  Earlier  Eliza- 
bethan Drama.  Modern  Lang.  Asso.  Pub.  1905. 

Hunt,  Leigh.     The  Examiner. 

Hutton,  R.  Curiosities  of  the  American  Stage.  New  York, 
1891. 

Inchbald,  E.  The  British  Theatre.  Richard  the  Third,  Vol. 
17.  London,  1806-9. 

Ireland,  J.  N.  Records  of  the  New  York  Stage  from  1750  to 
1860.  2  vols.  New  York,  1866. 

Irving,  H.  B.  The  English  Stage  in  the  Eighteenth  Century. 
Fortnightly  Review,  Vols.  85  and  86  (1906). 

Kilian,  E.  Die  scenischen  Formen  Shakespeare's  in  ihrem 
Verhaltniss  zur  Buhne  seiner  Zeit.  Jahrbuch,  Vol. 
28. 

Shakespeare  auf  der  Modernen  Buhne.     Shak.  Jahrbuch, 
Vol.  36. 

Knight,  J.     Life  of  Garrick.    London,  1894. 

Lamb,  C.     On  the  Tragedies  of  Shakespeare.     London,  1855. 

Lawrence,  W.  J.     A  Forgotten  Stage  Conventionality.     An- 

glia,  Vol.  26  (1903). 
Pioneers  of  Modern  English  Stage  Mounting.     Magazine 

of  Art,  Vol.  18. 
Stage  Scenery  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.     Magazine  of 

Art,  Vol.  18. 
Some  Characteristics  of  the   Elizabethan   Stuart   Stage. 

Englische  Studien,  Vol.  32  (1902). 

Music  in  the  Elizabethan  Theatre.     Shakespeare  Jahr- 
buch, Vol.  44  (1908). 

Lacy.     Acting  Edition  of  Plays.     Vol.  13,  Richard  III. 

Lee,  Sidney.     The  Life  of  Shakespeare.     1898. 

Lewes,  G.  H.  On  Actors  and  the  Art  of  Acting.  New 
York,  1880. 

Lowe,  R.     Thomas  Betterton.     New  York,  1891. 


177 

Lounsbury,  T.  R.     Shakespeare  as  a  Dramatic  Artist.     New 

York,  1902. 
Lowell,  J.  R.     Shakespeare's  Richard  the  Third.     In  Latest 

Literary  Essays  and  Addresses.     1892. 
Macready,  W.  C.     Reminiscences.     Edited  by  Sir  Frederick 

Pollock.     New  York,  1875. 
Malone,  E.     Historical  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of 

the  English  Stage.     Vol.  Ill  of  Edition  of  Shake- 
speare's Works.     1790. 
Manningham,    J.     Diary.     Edited    by    J.    Bruce.     Camden 

Society  Pub.,  Vol.  99. 

Mantzius,  K.     The  History  of  Theatric  Art.     3  vols.     1904. 
Meyer,  E.     Machiavelli  and  the  Elizabethan  Drama.     Literar- 

historische  Forschungen,  Vol.  I. 
Molloy,  J.  F.    The  Life  and  Adventures  of  Edmund  Kean, 

Tragedian.     London,  1888. 

Moorman,   F.   W.     The   Pre-Shakespearian   Ghost.     Shake- 
speare's Ghosts.     Modern  Lang.  Review,  1906. 
Murphy,  A.     The  Life  of  David  Garrick,  Esq.     Dublin,  1801. 
Ochelhauser,  W.     Uber  Richard  III.     Shak.  Jahrbuch,  Vol. 

Ill  (1868). 

Ordish,  T.  F.     Early  London  Theatres.     London,  1894. 
Oxberry,   W.     New   English   Drama.     London,    1818.     Vol. 

Ill,  Richard  III. 
Pepys,    S.     Diary.     Edited    by    H.    B.    Wheatley.     London, 

1896. 
Phelps,  W.  M.,  and  Forbes-Robertson,  J.     The  Life  and 

Life- Work  of  Samuel  Phelps.     London,  1886. 
Racinet,  A.    Le  Costume  Historique.    Paris,  1873. 
Rees,    J.    (Colley   Gibber).     The    Life    of    Edwin    Forrest. 

Philadelphia,  1874. 
Regel,  M.     Uber  Englisches  Theatrewesen  zu  Shakespeare's 

Zeit.     Prague,  1895. 
Reynolds,   G.  F.     Some  Principles  of  Elizabethan  Staging. 

Modern  Philology,  1905. 
Schelling,  F.  E.     The  English  Chronicle  Play.     New  York, 

1902. 
13 


178 

Seilhamer,  G.  O.     A  History  of  the  American  Theatre.     3 

vols.     Philadelphia,  1891. 
Spedding,  J.     On  the  Corrected  Edition  of  Richard  III. 

New  Shakespeare  Society  Transactions,  1875. 
Stoll,  E.  E.    John  Webster.     Cambridge,  1905. 
Tallis'  Dramatic  Magazine  and  General  Theatrical  and  Musi- 
cal Review.    New  York  and  London,  1850. 
Thorndike,  A.  H.     The  Relations  of  Hamlet  to  Contemporary 

Revenge  Plays.     Pub.  Modern  Lang.  Asso.,  1902. 
Introduction  to  Belle  Lettre  Series  Edition  of  Beaumont 

and  Fletcher's  The  Maid's  Tragedy  and  Philaster. 

1906. 

Tragedy.     1908. 
Trench,  W.  F.     A  Mirror  for  Magistrates,  its  origin  and 

influence.     Edinburgh,  1898. 
Tupper,  J.   W.     The  Relation  of   the   Heroic   Play  to   the 

Romances  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.     Pub.  Modern 

Lang.  Asso.,  1905. 
Vincke,  G.  F.  von.     Shakespeare  auf  der  Englischen  Buhne 

seit    Garrick.     Gesammelte    Aufsatze    zur    Biihnen- 

geschichte,  No.  6. 
Wright,  J.     Historia  Histrionica.     Reprint  in  Lowe's  edition 

of  Gibber's  Apology,  of  the  edition  of  1699. 
Ward,  A.  W.     A  History  of  English  Dramatic  Literature  to 

the  Death  of  Queen  Anne.     3  vols.     1899. 
Wemyss,  F.  C.     Twenty-Six  Years  of  the  Life  of  an  Actor 

and  Manager.    2  vols.    New  York,  1847. 
Winter,  William.     Shadows  of  the  Stage.     New  York,  1892. 
The  Life  and  Art  of  Edwin  Booth.     New  York,  1893. 


INDEX. 


The   index   includes   the   names   of   plays,   playwrights,    actors,   theatres 
and  companies. 


Adcock,   139;  Mrs.,   139 

Addams,  Elder,  157 

Admiral's     Company,     9,     10,     i3n, 

14",  27 
Aesop,  97n 
Agamemnon,  38n 
Albion  Queens,  see  Island  Queens 
Albyon  Knight,   I2n 
Alchemist,  The,  27 
Alleyn,    un 
Allison,  Mrs.,  94 
Alphonsus  of  Arragon,  i^n,  16,  i6n, 

20,   21,   46,   47,   48,    Sin,    53n,    55, 

56n. 

American  Citizen,  The,  146 
American   Company,  The,   142,    143, 

145,  146,  i46n,  148,  i55n 
Anatomist,  The,   139 
Anthony  and  Cleopatra,  is8n 
Apius  and  Virginia,  12,  i2n 
Arden  of  Fever  sham,  I3n 
Anthony  Aston,   138 
Apostate,  The,  159 
Astley's  Amphitheatre,  156 
Astor  Place  Theatre,   156 
Atkinson,   Miss,   126 

Baker,    Mrs.,    g8n 

Bad  Dickey,    158,   is8n 

Bajazet,  98n 

Baltimore  Company,   144 

Banks,   62,   62n,   69 

Barrett,  Lawrence,  164 

Barry,    105,    106,    io6n;    Mrs.,    74n, 

92n,    iosn 

Bartholomew  Fair,   son,   57. 
Bateman,  Ellen,   156 
Bateman,  Kate,  156 


Battle  of  Alcazar,  The,  3,  i3n,  i6n, 
20,  21,  29,  36,  51,  55n,  s6n 

Beau  in   the  Suds,   136 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  3,  63 

Beauty  the  Best  Advocate  (Measure 
for  Measure),  7711 

Beaux'  Stratagem,  The   i38n 

Beggar's  Bush,   The  71 

Bell,   139 

Bellamy,   Mrs.,  92n 

Bennett,  George,  128 

Bennett,  James,   160,  161 

Bernard,  John,  141,  147,  149 

Betterton,  69n,  72,  74,  77n,  78,  92, 
94,  99,  100,  107,  io8n,  168;  as 
Richard  the  Third,  67-8 

Betterton,  Mrs.,  72 

Betty,   ii2n 

Bibly,   151 

Black  Prince,  The,  62 

Blackfriars  Theatre,  94n 

Blakes,   102 

Blue  Beard,  ii2n 

Boadicea,   62 

Boheme,  98 

Bond,  25n 

Booth,  Barton,  92,  94,   100 

Booth,  Edwin,  ngn,  i52n,  153,  164, 
165,  168;  as  Richard  the  Third, 
159-160;  version  of  Richard  the 
Third,  161-2  ;  compared  with  Irv- 
ing's,  162-3 

Booth,  J.  B.,  ii9n,  149,  151,  156, 
157,  159,  159",  164,  167;  as 
Richard  the  Third,  118,  n8n;  in 
America,  152,  i52n 

Booth,  Wilkes,  164, 


179 


180 


Booth's    Theatre,     161,     i6in,     163, 

16311,  164 

Bowers,  Master,   155 
Bowery  Theatre,  The,  152,  155,  156, 

iS7,   158 

Broadway  Theatre,  The,  156 
Brougham,   is8n 
Brunton,  Elizabeth,   14711. 
Buckingham,   8,   10 
Bunn,  Mrs.,  124 
Burbage,   3,   311,  4,   25,   31,   5211,   67, 

1 68 

Burke,  Master,   155,   15511 
Burton's  Theatre,  159 
Bussy  D'Ambois,  2511 
Busybody,  The,  i37n,  143 

Cambyses,  12,  i2n,  13,  34,  37,  38, 
1 66 

Captives,  48 

Carey,    ii3n 

Caryll  (or  Carrol),  60,  62,  68,  78 

Castle  Garden,  i38n 

Catherine  and  Petruchio,  i4on 

Cato,    i37n 

Centlivre,   Mrs.,   143 

Chamberlain's  Company,  i,  in,  9, 
10,  i4n,  25,  170 

Chanfrau,    158 

Chapman,  2n,   i32n 

Charke,  Charlotte,  142 

Charles  the  Eighth,  86n 

Chatham  Theatre,  The,  157 

Chestnut  Street  Theatre  (Phila.), 
147 

Chettle,  i2n 

Chevy  Chase,  i25n 

Children  of  the  Chapel,  i4n 

Chock,  Miss,  95 

Cibber,  Colley,  67,  71  n,  101,  io4n, 
108,  ii7n,  121,  126,  i26n,  131, 
135,  138,  142,  150,  160,  161,  162, 
163,  i63n,  169,  170;  version  of 
Richard  the  Third,  76-100;  Kem- 
ble's  revision,  113-4;  Macready's 
rearrangement,  123-4;  Charles 
Kean  on,  128;  Forrest's  revision, 
154;  Mansfield's  revision,  164 

Cibber,  Theophilus,   loon 

Cibber,  Mrs.  T.,  g2n,  93n,  107 


Citizen,  The,  145 

City  Customs,  Interlude  of,  9311 

Civil  Wars  between  the  Houses  of 
York  and  Lancaster,  icon 

Clarkson,  139 

Clinton's  Thespians,  143,  144,  145 

Clive,  Mrs.,  93n 

Comical  Gallant,  The,  770. 

Comus,  113 

Conquest  of  Granada,  The,  71 

Contention  between  the  Houses  of 
York  and  Lancaster,  The,  etc.; 
the  First  Part,  7,  9,  i3n,  i7n,  29, 
Sin,  53n;  the  Second  Part,  or  The 
True  Tragedy  of  the  Duke  of 
York,  7,  g,  10,  i4n,  15,  i6n,  i7n, 
29,  Sin,  53n,  ssn 

Cooke,  George  F.,  non,  in,  112, 
ii2n,  ii7n,  118,  128,  148,  149, 
iSin,  152,  159;  as  Richard  the 
Third,  no;  compared  with  Ed- 
mund Kean,  115-6;  in  America, 
150-1 

Cooper,  Thomas  A.,  148,  i48n,  149, 
i49n 

Coriolanus,  i3in 

Covent  Garden,  98,  105,  106,  107, 
io7n,  no,  112,  ii2n,  n8n,  121, 
122,  i2sn,  i32n,  147,  ism 

Crampton,  Charlotte,  157 

Crofts,   1 02 

Cross  Keys,  The,  I3n 

Crowne,  John,  78,  86n,  170 

Cruger's  Wharf  Theatre,  139 

Curtain,  The,   7,  9,   10,   i2n,  I4n 

Cushman,    Charlotte,    i54n 

Cymbeline ;  D'Urfey's  version,  62n ; 
Garrick's  version,  i4on 

Damon  and  Phillida,  136,   139 
D'Avenant,  62n,  70,  71,  73,  74,  87n, 

170 
Davenport,  Mrs.,   156;  Miss  J.  M., 

156 

David  and  Bathseba,  i^n,  39,  40 
Davies,  Mrs.,  107 
Davis,  Mrs.,  137 
Davis,  Mary,  71 
Day,  John,    I2n 
Delane,  102 


181 


Delavigne,  Casimir,  1320. 

Derby's  Company,  izn 

Desordre  et  Genie,  115,  11511 

Destruction  of  Jerusalem,  The,  6 

Devil  to  Pay,  93,  139 

Dido,  i4n 

Dighton,  9911 

Doctor  Faustus,  1311,  18,  i8n,  19, 
i9n,  30,  63 

Don  Felix,  10511 

Dorset  Garden,  6211 

Douglas,  155,  15511,  is8n 

Douglass,   140,  141,   i42n 

Douglass,  Mrs.,  see  Mrs.  Hallam 

Drury  Lane  Theatre,  62n,  69,  73,  77, 
9on,  93,  95,  97,  97n,  98,  99,  loon, 
105,  106,  io7n,  108,  no,  in,  114, 
119,  iign,  120,  122,  124,  i25n, 
129,  1320,  138,  141,  147,  is6n, 


Dryden,  62,  71,  77n, 

Duff,  151 

Duke's    Theatre,    see    Lincoln's    Inn 

Fields 

Dunstall,  102 
D'Urfey,  62n 
Duvall,  Madam,  102 

Eastward  Hoe,  2n 

Edgar  or  The  English  Monarch,  62n, 

63 
Edward  the  First,  i3n,  15,  isn,  1711, 

22,  27,  29,  31,  57 
Edward  the  Second,  i4n,  19,  27,  31, 

34,  35,  54 
Edward  the  Third,  gn,  i4n,  isn,  16, 

i7n,  31,  52 
Edward  the  Fourth,  3,    i2n,   78,  85, 

99n 

Egerton,   124 
Elliston,   122,   is6n 
Enfants  d'Edouard,  Les,   i32n 
England's  Parnassus,  2 
English   Princess,    The,   60,    62,    69, 

70,    71,    72,   72n,    73,   74,   78,   78n, 

81,  8m,  82,  86,  86n,  87,  87n,  88, 

88n,    92,    93,    166,    168  ;    resume, 

64-5  ;  general  characteristics,  65- 

7  ;  Betterton  in,  67-8 
Eugenia,  8gn 


Evans,  95 

Every  Man  in  His  Humour,  53 

Fairbank,  95 

Fair  Em,  i3n 

Famous  Victories  of  Henry  the 
Fifth,  The,  12,  i3n,  16,  i6n,  i7n, 
19,  22,  29,  32 

Fatal  Vision,  The,  92 

Fate  of  Tyranny,  The,   145 

Faucit,  Miss,    118 

Faucit,  Mrs.,    i24n 

Fechter,  i32n 

Fennell,   147,  149,  i49n,   151 

Fielding,  Henry,  143 

First  of  May  or  a  Royal  Love- 
Match,  The,  13211 

Fisher,   Clara,    is6n 

Foote,  141 

Ford,  60 

Forrest,  Edwin,  issn,  158,  159,  165; 
as  Richard  the  Third,  152-3  ;  ver- 
sion of  Richard  the  Third,  154 

Fortune  Theatre,  The,  i2n,  6m 

Franklin  Theatre,   156 

Friar  Bacon  and  Friar  Bungay,  i3n 

Froment,  Mons.,  102 

Garrick,  87n,  92n,  93n,  99,  ggn, 
115,  ii7n,  120,  I2in,  i3on,  132, 
138,  I4on,  141,  142,  i45n,  147, 
167,  1 68;  his  Richard  modelled 
on  Ryan's,  98,  98n ;  characteris- 
tics of  his  Richard,  101-9 

Generous  Choise,  The,  gjr\ 

George  a  Green,  i^n 

Giffard,  102;  W.,  102;  Mrs.,  102, 
106 

Gildon,    77n 

Glenn,  158 

Glover,  Mrs.,  118 

Godfrey,  Thomas,  i4on 

Goodfellow,  1 06 

Goodman's  Fields  Theatre,  99n,  101, 
105,  138 

Gorboduc,  12,  i2n,  34,  37,  49 

Granier,  Miss,  102 

Greene,  George,  6,  12,  20,  30 

Hackett,  James  H.,  157 


182 


Hallam,  A.,  139 

Hallam,  Lewis,  9911,  138,  139;  Mrs., 

139,   141 
Hallam,  Lewis,    Jr.,    138,    139,    140, 

141,   145,   146 
Hamblin,  154 
Hamlet,    30,    31,   49,    5611,    $8n,    86, 

120,  14011,  is8n,  159,  1 68 
Harlequin  Collector,  139 
Harlequin's  Vagaries,  14011 
Harman,  139;  Mrs.,  139,  142 
Harper,  147 
Harris,   68,   74 
Hathaway,  Annie,   156 
Have  With  You  to  Saffron  Walden, 

6n 

Haymarket  Theatre,  97,  97n,  n8n 
Henderson,   106,   109 
Henry    the    Fourth,    62n,    77n,    87, 

i4on,   142 
Henry    the   Fifth,    3n,    i6n,    45,    54, 

57,  77n,  86,  I2$n 

Henry  the  Fifth  (Orrery's),  62,  74 
Henry  the  Sixth,  Part  I,  7,  10,  isn, 

i4n,    i6n,    I7n,    40,    sin,    53,    78, 

81,   i32n.      Part  II,   i$n,  i7n,  34, 

Sin,  69,  78,  87,  I32n.      Part  III, 

15,  i6n,  39,  sin,  53,  69,  80,  i32n, 

170 
Henry   the  Sixth    (Crowne's),    Part 

I,    78,     170.       Part    II    or    The 

Misery  of  Civil  War,  60,  62n,  69, 

6gn,  80,  170 
Henry  the  Eighth,  57,  74,  77n,  108, 

in 

Henry e  Richmond,   nn 
Herbert,   137 
Herod  the  Great,  86n 
Herring,    Mrs.,     156;    Fanny,     156, 

i58n 
Heywood,  Thomas,  3,  6,  I2n,  48,  78, 

85,   93n,   99n 
Hieronimo,  First  Part  of,   i3n,   31, 

49 

Hill,  Aaron,  92,  143 
Hill,  Isabel,  13211 
Hippisley,  Miss,   102 
Histriomastix,  30,  45 
Hob  in  the  Well,   i43n 
Hodgkinson,    John,    146,    147,    148, 

149 


Holland,   105;   George,   is8n 
Hopkins,  Charles,  62 
Horestes,  12,  i2n,  13,  50 
Horton,   Mrs.,  98n,   107 
Howard,   Sir   Robert,    170 
Humour  of  the  Age,  The,  93n 

Indian  Queen,  The,  70,  71 
Innocent    Usurper    or    Lady    Jane 

Grey,  The,  6211 
Iron  Age,  The,  3 
Iron  Chest,  The,  120 
Irving,    Sir    Henry,    107,    108,    132, 

J53»   J59,   161,   i63n,   168:  version 

of  Richard  the  Third,  129-30;  as 

Richard,    130-1 
Island  Queens,  The  (Albion  Queens'), 

620. 

Jack  Straw,  i^n,  i6n,  i7n 

Jago,  136 

James    the    Fourth,    i4n,    i6n,    I7n, 

56n 

Jane  Shore,   loon,   ii2n 
Jewess,  The,  125 
Jew   of  Malta,   The,    1311,    18,    i8n, 

19,  i9n,  23,  30,  55 
Jew   of   Malta,    The    (Merchant    of 

Venice),  77n 
Jocasta,   12,    i2n 
John  Street  Theatre,  The,  140,  143, 

146,   148 

Jones,  Master,  155;  Mrs.,  155 
Jones,     George     (Count     Joannes) , 

i52n,  157,  161 
Jonson,  Ben,  nn,  48,  53 

Kean,  Charles,  107,  i2gn,  132,  154, 
i6on;  production  of  Richard  the 
Third,  126-8. 

Kean,  Edmund,  42n,  52n,  in,  128, 
130,  132,  149,  150,  i52n,  154, 
i56n,  157,  159,  167,  168;  as 
Richard  the  Third,  114-121  ;  com- 
pared with  Macready,  122-3 ;  in 
America,  151  ;  compared  with  J.. 
B.  Booth,  152 

Kean,  Thomas,  135 

Keene,  J.  W.,  164 

Kemble,   Charles,   i32n, 


183 


Kemble,  John  Philip,  io8n,  115, 
11511,  116,  118,  119,  IIQH,  123, 
127,  132,  146,  147,  149,  149", 
150,  ism,  15911,  160,  168;  as 
Richard  the  Third,  109-110;  ar- 
cheological  reforms,  111-112;  re- 
vision of  Gibber  version,  113-114 

Kempe,   3 

Kent,  95 

King  Arthur    (Dryden's),   62 

King  Arthur    (Purcell's),   93n 

King  Edgar   and   Alfrida,   62n 

King  in  the  Country,  The,  990. 

King  Johan,  i2n,  13,  37 

King  John,  39 

King's  Players,  The   (King  Charles 

I),   94" 

Knack  to  Know  a  Knave,  The,  i4n 
Knight,   95 

Koster  and  Bial's  Theatre,  158 
Kyd,   Thomas,    i3n,    14,   20,   21,   23, 

30,  46,   166,  167 

Lacey,   77n 

Lamball,   Mrs.,  99n 

Landis,  Dr.,  157 

Lansdowne,  Lord,   77n 

Law  Against  Lovers,  The,  170 

Lear,  King,  29,  62n,  120,  i39n, 
i4on,  1 68,  169 

Lear,  King  (Tate's),  62n,  77n,  83n, 
170 

Leir,  King,  isn 

Le  Kain,  115 

Lethe,    138,    i43n 

Lewis,   Mrs.  H.,   156 

Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  (Duke's  Thea- 
tre), 62n,  68,  69,  71,  78,  95,  98, 
104,  i25n 

Lindar,   97n 

Little  French  Lawyer,  The,  3 

Locrine,  i3n,  16,  i6n,  I7n,  20,  21, 
23",  36,  38,  39,  46,  47,  48,  5  m, 
53,  S6n 

Lodge,  Thomas,  6,  48 

Looking  Glass  for  London,  A,  70 

Lord   Flinnip,   is6n 

Love  and  Honor,  74 

Love  for  Love,  136,  142 

Love  Makes  a  Man,  97n 


Loves  of  King  Edward  the  Fourth, 

The,  ggn 

Loyal  General,  The,  4 
London  Lyceum,  The,  129,  13 in,  161 
Lying  Valet,  The,  143 

Macbeth,    49,    6in,    io4n,    109,    in, 

i4on,  i49n,  ison,   is8n,  169,  170; 

as  opera,  62n 

Macklin,  104,  io4n,  106,  in,  119 
Macready,  60,  118,  n8n,  i29n,  161  ; 

as   Richard  the  Third,   121,   125 ; 

compared   with    E.    Kean,    122-3; 

revision  of  Gibber's  text,  123-4 
Mad  Hercules,  i6n 
Malone,   139 

Man  About  Town,  The,  157 
Manfred,  is8n 
Mangeon,  Master,  155 
Mansfield,  Richard,  164 
Massacre  at  Paris,  The,  i4n,  31,  34n 
Mayor  of  Garratt,  The,  143 
Manning,  97n 
Marlowe,  in,  6,  10,  14,  17,  18,  i8n, 

19,    20,    2on,    21,    22,    23,    29,    34, 

42,  51,  166,  167,  169 
Marr,   102 
Marshall,  102 
Marston,  Henry,  128 
Marston,  John,  2n 
Massinger,   i24n 
Matthews,  Charles,  11311 
McCullough,  J.,  164 
McCutcheon,  T.,  157 
McWade,  R.,  158 
Measure  for  Measure,  170 
Medecin  Malgre  Lui,  Le,  93n 
Meggett,  n8n 
Melmoth,  Mrs.,  147 
Merchant  of  Venice,  io4n,  iosn,  119, 
120,    138,    i38n,    i4on;   revised   as 

The  Jew  of  Malta,  7711 
Merry,    Mrs.    (Elizabeth    Brunton), 


Merry  Wives  of  Windsor,  The,  7711 

Metamora,   153 

Midsummer  Night's  Dream,  The,  30 

Miller,   139 

Mills,  95,  97" 


184 


Misfortunes  of  Arthur,  The,  12,  i2n, 

46,  47,   56n 

Miss  in  her  Teens,  141 
Mitchell,  William,   15811 
Mitchell's  Olympic,  158 
Mock  Doctor,  The,  136 
Mollison,  William,  168,  169 
Moody,  128 
Morris,  D.  L.,  158 
Morris,  Mrs.,  142 
Mossop,  105,  1 06,  io6n,  10711 
Much  Ado  about  Nothing,  14011,  170 
Murphy,   106,   145 
Murray,  135;  Master  Dickey,  136 

Nash,  Thomas,  6n,  7,  12 

Nassau    Street    Theatre,    The,    134, 

136,  139,  148,  iSSn 
Naylor,  102;  Miss,  102 
Newington  Butts,  9 
Neu  Stadt  Theatre,  157 
New  Way  to  Pay  Old  Debts,  A,  120, 

159 
Niblo's    Garden,     13 in,    15411,    '60, 

163 

Nobody  and  Somebody,  i4n 
Norris,  97n 

Oedipus,  38,  38n 

Old  Wives'  Tale,  An,  47,  48 

Orphan,  The,  i38n 

Orrery,  Earl  of,  Charles  Boyle,  62, 

86n 
Othello,   120,   139,   i4on,   142,   is8n, 

1 68 
Otway,  Thomas,  i38n 

Pageant  of  the  Shearmen  and  Tay- 
lors, 30,  3on 

Pagett,  1 02 

Palsgrave's  Company,  i2n,  6 in,  94n 

Papal  Tyranny,  95 

Parasitaster  or  the  Fawne,  an 

Park  Theatre,  The,  148,  i48n,  15 in, 
152,  154,  is4n,  155,  issn,  156, 
158 

Patterson,    102 

Payne,  John  Howard,  155,  issn 

Peele,  George,  3,  6,  20 

Pembroke's  Company,   7,  9,   10,   I4n 

Perkin  Warbeck,  61 


Phelps,  Samuel,  125,  i25n,  126,  132, 

160,   161 
Philadelphia    Comedians,    The,    137, 


Pinketham,  97n 

Pix,  Mrs.,  62 

Plunkett,    118 

Poetaster,  The,  48 

Polly  Honeycomb, 

Porter,  Mrs.,  gSn 

Possard,    157 

Powel,   95 

Powell,  147;  Mrs.,  95,  in 

Prince  Charles'  Men,  94n 

Prince  of  Parthia,  The,  i4on 

Pritchard,  Mrs.,  106,  107,  156 

Promos  and  Cassandra,  iyn 

Puttenham,   102 

Queen    Catherine    or    the    Ruins    of 

Love,  62 
Queen's  Players,  The,  7,  8,  10,  I3n, 

i4n 
Quinn,    94,   97n,   98,    102,    104,    105, 

106,    107,    i2in,    141  ;   as   Richard 

the  Third,  99,   loon 

Ravenscroft,  Edward,  62,  77n 
Recruiting  Officer,  The,  itfn 
Red  Bull,  The,  94n 
Reddish,    106 

Return  from  Parnassus,  The,  3 
Richard  Crookback,  nn 
Richard  der  Dritte,    i32n 
Richard,  Duke  of  York,  132^ 
Richard  Number  Three,   158,   is8n 
Richard  the  Confessor,  8,   10 
Richard     the     Second,     80,      i32n; 

Tate's  version,  62n 
Richard  the  Third,  see  Shakespeare, 

Gibber,    Forrest,    E.    Kean,   J.    P. 

Kemble,      Macready,      Mansfield ; 

Booth's    version,    see    E.    Booth; 

Irving's  version,   see   Irving 
Richard  the  Third  in  Dutch,  158 
Richard  the  Third  or  The  English 

Prophet,  i2n,  61,  78,  93n 
Richardus    Tertius,    5,    6,    6n,    ion, 

i2n,   i6n,  29,  29n,  38,  39,  41,  43, 

46,  50,  53,   54",  84,  84n,   1 66 


185 


Richelieu,  159 

Rigby,   139;  Mrs.,   139 

Rogers,   95 

Romeo    and    Juliet,    1411,    5711,    9311, 

13911,   14011,    15811;   Howard's  ver- 

sion,  170 

Rose  Theatre,  The,   7,  9,   10,   1411 
Rowe,    Nicholas,   9711,    loon,    143 
Rowley,    Samuel,    i2n,    ign,    61,    78, 

93n 

Royal  Merchant,  The,  9311 
Royal  Princess's  Theatre,  The,   126, 


Ryan,  97n,    98,    98n,    104,    105,    107, 


Ryan,  Dennis,    145 

Rymer,  Thomas,  62,  63,  6sn,  66n 

Sadler's   Wells   Theatre,    125,    i2sn, 

128,  129,  160 
Sandford,  91,  95 
Savage,  xoon 
Sawney   the  Scott    (Taming  of   the 

Shrew),   77n 

School  Boy,  The,  93n,  97n 
Scourge  of  Villanie,  The,  2n 
Search  for  Money,  The,   1911 
Selimus,  i^n,  16,  20,  21,  38,  40 
Seymour,  H.,  157 
Shakespeare,    passim 
Sheep  Shearing,  see   Winter's  Tale, 

The 

Sheridan,   105,   106,    io6n,    107 
Shore's  Wife,  i2n 
Siddons,  Mrs.,  107,  io7n,  in,  ii2n, 

iiSn,  142,  147,   149,   i49n,   ism 
Siege  of  Rhodes,  The,  70 
Simpson,  95 
Singleton,    139 
Sir    Thomas    More,    i4n,    i7n,    42, 

44,  53« 

Smith,  E.  T.,  105,  106,  io6n,  10711 
Smith    (a   contemporary    of    Better- 

ton),   68 

Smith,  Master  G.  F.,  155 
Solyman  and  Perseda,  i^n,  56 
Southwark  Theatre,  The,  140,  141 
Spanish  Tragedy,  The,  nn,  i3n,  20, 

27,   34,  38,  44,  46,  47 
Steel,  Mrs.,   102,   106 
Storer,  Miss,  141 


Strange's  Company,  9,   10,   i3n,  I4n 
Strappado  for  the  Divell,  3 
Sullivan,    Barry,    129 
Sussex'  Company,  8,  10,  i4n 

Tamburlaine,  i3n,  14,  i6n,  18,  i8n, 
19,  ign,  20,  2on,  21,  27,  29,  30, 
31,  3in,  32,  39,  51,  5m,  62 

Tamerlane  (Rowe's),  143 

Taming  of  the  Shrew,  The,  77n,  93n 

Tancred  and  Gismunda,  12,  34,  39, 
55,  56n 

Taste,   141 

Taswell,  99n 

Tate,  Nahum,  4,  62n,  77n,  170 

Taylor,  Mrs.,  136 

Tammany  Theatre,  157,   158 

Tempest,  The,  68,  is8n,  170; 
D'Avenant's  version,  73 

Thalia  Theatre,  see  Bowery  Thea- 
tre 

Theatre,  The,  7,  8,  9,  10,  i3n,  i4n, 
25,  36,  58 

Theatre  Comique   (New  York),   158 

Theatre  Frangais,    120 

Theatre  Porte  Saint-Martin,  nsn 

Theatre  Royal,  see  Drury  Lane 

Thomas,  95 

Titus  Andronicus,  i^n,  34,  45n ; 
Ravenscroft's  version,  77n 

Tom  Thumb,   143 

Tomlinson,  Mrs.,   143 

Troas,   The,  38 

Troublesome  Reign  of  King  John, 
The,  i3n,  15,  isn,  16,  i6n,  22, 
55",  57 

True  Tragedy  of  the  Duke  of  York, 
The,  see  Contention,  the  Second 
Part. 

True  Tragedy  of  Richard  the  Third, 
The,  in,  7,  10,  i4n,  16,  i7n,  2on, 
21,  29,  33,  39,  41,  43,  46,  47,  52n, 
53,  54,  58,  78,  166 

Troilus  and  Cressida  (Dryden's), 
77n 

Unhappy   Favorite   or   the  Earl   of 

Essex,  The,  62n,  69,  74n 
Union  Square  Theatre,  The,   158 
Upton,   R.,    137 


186 


Vandenhoff,    11711 
Vaughan,   102 
Villiers,  Mrs.,  i49n 
Virgin  Martyr,  The,  73 
Virgin  Unmasked,  The,   102 
Virtue    Betrayed    or    Anna    Bullen, 
6211 

Wall,  144;  Mrs.,  144 

Wallacks,   The,    164 

Ward,  Mrs.,  in 

Warner,  Mrs.,  12611 

Warner,   Neil,    161 

Warning  for  Fair    Women,   A,    44, 

47,   48,  49 
Weisse,  C.  F.,  I32n 
What  You  Will,  2n 
Whitlock,  Mrs.,   147, 
Wignell,  147,  148,  149 


Wilkes,  93,  94,  97,  97n 
Williams,  H.  A.,  156;  Mrs.,  156 
Winter's  Tale,  A  (Sheep  Shearing), 

107 

Wit's  Miserie,  48,  49n 
Woffington,  Peg,  93n,  iosn,  107 
Woodstock,  i4n,  27,  34,  35,  46,  46n, 

47n 
Wounds  of  Civil  War,  The,  i3n,  16, 

46,  47,   5  in 
Wroughton,   120 
Wynell,   137 

Ximena,  96n 


Yates,  iisn,  i24n;  Mrs.,  102 
Young,  Charles,  118 

Zara,  143 


THE 

I    UNIVERSITY  ) 

OF 


VITA 

The  author  of  this  dissertation  was  born  in  Seneca  Falls, 
N.  Y.,  on  August  12,  1872.  She  was  educated  in  public  and 
private  schools  in  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.,  and  entered 
Wellesley  College  in  the  class  of  1894.  From  1895  to  I9OI> 
she  was  a  teacher  of  English  and  Latin  in  private  schools  in 
Brooklyn  and  New  York,  at  the  same  time  pursuing  courses 
of  study  at '  Columbia  University,  and  there  receiving  the 
degree  of  M. A.  in  1901.  In  1903,  she  became  an  instructor 
in  English  at  Vassar  College.  From  1905  to  1907  she  was  in 
residence  at  Columbia  and  finished  the  work  for  the  degree 
of  Ph.D.,  returning  to  Vassar  College  in  1907.  The  Degree 
of  Ph.D.  was  conferred  in  1909. 


187 


HOME  USE 

CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
MAIN  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 
1 -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 
6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  Circulation  Desk. 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior 

to  due  date. 

ALL  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL  7  DAYS 
AFTER  DATE  CHECKED  OUT. 


-   n 


REC.  CIR. 


AUG221980  NOV121985       _ 


MC.CIR.AU6    6*80 


MOV     11985 


JUN16  661 


uv;  r  -  8 


AM 


RECEIVED 


T. 


JUL 


8 


LD21      A    LOU)    r-V'74 

TOOL) 


General  Library 
University  of  California 

Berkeley  ^ 


LD  2lA-60m-3.'65 
(F2336slO)476B 


LD  21-100m-2,'55 
(B139s22)476 


General  Library     t 
Universiry  of  California 
Berkeley 

General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


